Jump to content

Potential Problem Caches


tozainamboku

Recommended Posts

... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.
What bugs me is that you are so strident about the issue when you've stated that this isn't an issue at all in your neck of the woods. It's strange that you're demanding action on a hypothetical issue (unless you are just trying to do away with caches that you don't like).
And you just stated that you don't own or are not in the market to place a CPC, right? How is that any different? I suppose that we both care about the game and the people play it enough to have a conversation about the bigger picture?
The difference is simple. Your ranting about something that doesn't affect you. You have no interest in placing these caches and there are none in your area placed. While I am not currently interested in owning additional caches, I am still seeking them. There are certainly CPC/LPCs in my area and in those areas that I travel. As I come upon them, I will enjoy logging them.

 

Does that make it clearer for you?

Link to comment
... Continuing to insist that Camp 3 is a subset of Camp 1 simply shows you are either unwilling or unable to recognize the difference.
My insistence in this matter is based solely on those cachers who were arguing the bannination side of the argument in the other thread and now claim to be in camp 3.
Link to comment
Apparently we've found your personal boundary then. You can argue that you don't think the placing of CPCs without permission of the owner is much of a problem, that the number of caches in Walmart or BBS stores is greatly exaggerated, that GC.com is well aware of all the CPCs out there and has done their homework to cover themselves legally but you are not willing to make the next step for the reasons that you stated.

 

It is not debatable that the next step you don't want to take would involve -actually doing something- in the real world, instead of stating your case so eloquently in the Groundspeak forum. I hope you don't cry foul when someone else, that might not agree with your personal views, steps up and does it.

I have no idea what your point is in this post, but I think I might be able to help you clarify the issue.

 

I believe that everyone should get adequate permission as required by the guidelines. When I hide a cache, I get appropriate permission.

 

I do not police the permission of others. Therefore, I am neither going to verify that any CPC/LPC owner has obtained permission nor am I going to ask for permission on behalf of anyone else.

 

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission, even if I believed that explicit permission was required for this type of hide.

 

I sincerely hope that this helped make it clear for you. Please let me know if it did not.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I still think Camp #3 is just a subset of Camp #1.

I forgive your lack of understanding. Allow me to clarify for you. Those of us in Camp 3 support & embrace CPC's as a whole, seeing them as a benign alternative to hikes in the woods. We in Camp 3 recognize that CPC's have the potential to cast a bad light on this game that we all love to play, if they are hidden without explicit permission. The title of this thread is "Potential Problem Caches". Those of us in Camp 3 see this bad light as a Potential Problem, and have offered what we feel might reduce the problem.

 

This position, (or camp, if you prefer the term), is absolutely incompatible with the stated 1st camp's position of "Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed".

 

Continuing to insist that Camp 3 is a subset of Camp 1 simply shows you are either unwilling or unable to recognize the difference.

Fine, you get your own tent.

 

I forgive your inability to apply what you said to the posts to which you were responding.

 

Once more: Team GeoBlast referred to an endless treadmill. He expressed a belief that someone needs to end it by approaching Retail Big Box Headquarters. He asked why that hasn't happened. Mushtang answered his question. As it applies to THAT discussion, I believe your Camp #3 is a subset, or at least a very close neighbor, of Mushtang's Camp #1.

 

Now, in order to give you yet another opportunity to make your point relevant to the aforementioned discussion in context, I ask one more time: Are the people in your "camp" likely to approach headquarters of any of the large retail firms in question in order to to seek blanket permission in the form of permanent and universal allowance for all present future hides at all locations of the company?

 

If no, then you're in Camp #1 -- for the purposes of the original question.

 

If yes, then I for one would be VERY curious to hear more about it.

Link to comment
Fine, you get your own tent.

Whoo Hoo!!! I get my own tent!!!

(See how easy it is to please a Riffster?) :ph34r:

 

I forgive your inability to apply what you said to the posts to which you were responding.

Remember this post? :laughing:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...098&st=150#

Just in case you've forgotten, I've supplied a link to the post in question.

The quoted remarks were specifically target toward Wally World. In Mushtang's response, he broadened the discussion to include any and all CPC's, then decided to label those who might have issues with CPC's into two camps. My pointing out that there was at least one camp unaccounted for was perfectly applicable to his broadened response.

Has it sunk in yet? ;)

 

Are the people in your "camp" likely to approach headquarters of any of the large retail firms in question in order to to seek blanket permission in the form of permanent and universal allowance for all present future hides at all locations of the company?

Didn't I already answer that? Lemme look.... I thought I did.....Standby..... :ph34r:

Yup! Found it!

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...098&st=150#

Are you honestly unable to grasp that, or are you being deliberately obtuse just so you can continue a relatively pointless argument?

 

If no, then you're in Camp #1 -- for the purposes of the original question.

The answer, (as already supplied), is "No". But that doesn't put me in Camp # 1 for the purposes of the original question :D

Link to comment

Once more: Team GeoBlast referred to an endless treadmill. He expressed a belief that someone needs to end it by approaching Retail Big Box Headquarters. He asked why that hasn't happened. Mushtang answered his question. As it applies to THAT discussion, I believe your Camp #3 is a subset, or at least a very close neighbor, of Mushtang's Camp #1.

 

Now, in order to give you yet another opportunity to make your point relevant to the aforementioned discussion in context, I ask one more time: Are the people in your "camp" likely to approach headquarters of any of the large retail firms in question in order to to seek blanket permission in the form of permanent and universal allowance for all present future hides at all locations of the company?

 

If no, then you're in Camp #1 -- for the purposes of the original question.

Umm... No, that is untrue. From what I can read of the original question:

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

 

The people from the first group don't want to go to WalMart and ask permission because they'd rather sit back and hope that the CPCs get removed due to lack of permission. They're not going to help out a cache hiding technique that they don't like. Even if one does go you can be sure they'll explain it in the worst light in order to guarantee the manager (or whoever) says no.

 

The folks from the second group maintain that adequate permission already exists in these caches, and feel no need to go behind someone else and be cache cop.

...the reasoning someone not in camp 2 would have for not going to Wal-Mart to ask permission is a lack of willingness to help. Personally, the reasons I'm not pursuing permission are twofold:

1. Like sbell111 said:

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...
Is that a cop out? Maybe. :laughing:

 

2. If I were going to approach a BBS for permission from someone who had the authority to give it, I truly fear (as some in both camps have said) that the Home Office would suddenly ban all caches from their property. I don't want to be the guy who gets those caches banned. How would that happen? Well, first, my negotiating skills aren't the best. More importantly, this type of question will be better received by a company from someone higher up the ladder than a subscriber. I'd place odds on a BBS banning caches from their property even if Jeremy were to personally go and beg for permission.

 

Regardless of any of this, trying to group people into "Camp 1" and "Camp 2" and telling us what those camps think, is ridiculous. You don't know what I'm thinking any further than what I've typed here in the forums. Read my posts. Both threads. Nowhere have I called for the banning of any kind of cache, unless you consider requiring permission to be a ban on caches without it. Why have I called for permission? Because I see it as a Potential Problem Cache. Try sticking to the topic rather than lumping the posters here into categories that are convenient for you.

Link to comment
Fine, you get your own tent.

Whoo Hoo!!! I get my own tent!!!

(See how easy it is to please a Riffster?) ;)

:D:D:D

 

(Just please don't snore. And don't even bother trying to whisper or do anything else clandestine in there. There are no secrets in campgrounds. :ph34r: )

 

I forgive your inability to apply what you said to the posts to which you were responding.

Remember this post? :laughing:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...098&st=150#

Just in case you've forgotten, I've supplied a link to the post in question.

The quoted remarks were specifically target toward Wally World. In Mushtang's response, he broadened the discussion to include any and all CPC's, then decided to label those who might have issues with CPC's into two camps. My pointing out that there was at least one camp unaccounted for was perfectly applicable to his broadened response.

Has it sunk in yet? :D

 

Are the people in your "camp" likely to approach headquarters of any of the large retail firms in question in order to to seek blanket permission in the form of permanent and universal allowance for all present future hides at all locations of the company?

Didn't I already answer that? Lemme look.... I thought I did.....Standby..... :ph34r:

Yup! Found it!

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...098&st=150#

Are you honestly unable to grasp that, or are you being deliberately obtuse just so you can continue a relatively pointless argument?

Neither. I'm confused. Both of those links took me to post #151, which is an sbell111 post that has nothing to do with any of this.

 

If no, then you're in Camp #1 -- for the purposes of the original question.

The answer, (as already supplied), is "No". But that doesn't put me in Camp # 1 for the purposes of the original question :D

I can't speak for Mushtang, but that's all I needed to hear. :D

Link to comment
1. Like sbell111 said:
Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...

Is that a cop out? Maybe. :laughing:

Not a cop-out, just irrelevant to your point.

 

Sbell only said he isn't interested in hiding any CPC caches. Neither am I, for that matter.

 

Whether he (or I) were to be interested in finding any such caches is what you're talking about.

 

If I'm only finding CPC caches, and I'm not an owner of any CPC caches, then why do I need to ask anyone's permission to place CPC caches? That was sbell's point, as I understood it. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Sbell and I, and others -- including the management of this website -- are perfectly happy to take the owners of those CPC caches at their word when they tell Groundspeak that they have adequate permission. Why isn't that good enough for you?

 

Why have I called for permission? Because I see it as a Potential Problem Cache.

First: I see no problem.

 

Second: I see no need to "call for permission" when such permission is already assumed.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
(Just please don't snore. And don't even bother trying to whisper or do anything else clandestine in there. There are no secrets in campgrounds. :laughing: )

Shhhh!!!!

 

Neither. I'm confused. Both of those links took me to post #151, which is an sbell111 post that has nothing to do with any of this.

Dern! OK, I gotta admit. I stink with links. I tried..... :ph34r:

 

I can't speak for Mushtang, but that's all I needed to hear. :ph34r:

Thanx Brother! ;)

Link to comment

Okay, the last couple of pages of this thread has confused me.

 

Should property owners/leasors have the right of approving/disapproving caches on their property? And if they do have that right shouldn't they be able to exercise that right before the cache is hidden? And does the answer to this question speak to the heart of whether a cache can be a "problem" or not?

 

My head is spinning from all the double talk.

Link to comment

Who actually owns the parking lots of large shopping centers? Don't the large stores lease the property, unless the property is exclusive to the store?

 

Yes. Kind of makes most of the posts irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

 

Just because it might be difficult to ascertain ownership or approval authority?

 

Somebody owns the property.

 

If the store management doesn't feel comfortable giving permission, then surely they can tell you who the real owner is... that would be the entity to whom they pay RENT each month. I'll bet they know who that is!

 

in fact, the fact that the property might be owned by another company gives you the opportunity to "go over their head" if the Wally World manager says "no" - if you would be so inclined.

Link to comment
Who actually owns the parking lots of large shopping centers? Don't the large stores lease the property, unless the property is exclusive to the store?
Yes. Kind of makes most of the posts irrelevant.
Irrelevant?

 

Just because it might be difficult to ascertain ownership or approval authority?

 

Somebody owns the property.

 

If the store management doesn't feel comfortable giving permission, then surely they can tell you who the real owner is... that would be the entity to whom they pay RENT each month. I'll bet they know who that is!

 

in fact, the fact that the property might be owned by another company gives you the opportunity to "go over their head" if the Wally World manager says "no" - if you would be so inclined.

I think you misunderstood JimmEv's post. His point, in my opinion, is that if the property is not owned by a specific big box, then global permission could not be given by same. Further, the big box likely could not demand that the caches all be archived.

 

I'm sure that JimmyEv will correct me if I misunderstood his post.

Link to comment
Who actually owns the parking lots of large shopping centers? Don't the large stores lease the property, unless the property is exclusive to the store?
Yes. Kind of makes most of the posts irrelevant.
Irrelevant?

 

Just because it might be difficult to ascertain ownership or approval authority?

 

Somebody owns the property.

 

If the store management doesn't feel comfortable giving permission, then surely they can tell you who the real owner is... that would be the entity to whom they pay RENT each month. I'll bet they know who that is!

 

in fact, the fact that the property might be owned by another company gives you the opportunity to "go over their head" if the Wally World manager says "no" - if you would be so inclined.

I think you misunderstood JimmEv's post. His point, in my opinion, is that if the property is not owned by a specific big box, then global permission could not be given by same. Further, the big box likely could not demand that the caches all be archived.

 

I'm sure that JimmyEv will correct me if I misunderstood his post.

good point

But global permission by Wally World could be given: "As far as WW is concerned, caches on our lots are OK, providing there is no objection expressed by others that share the lots." This would basically be a guideline for their managers when asked by a prospective LPC cache placer.

 

I have personal knowledge of a cache that caused a lot of trouble in one WW which could have been averted by simply getting permission from the local manager- even if heshe did not technically have authority. Just their being AWARE of it would have been sufficient.

 

I think most managers have sense enough to refer you "up the ladder" if they think there is ANY reason that their authority is not sufficient.

Link to comment

Store managers are able to make those huge decisions on the use of their lamp posts. That's what they get the big bucks for. If they are overridden by higher management levels such as a district manager or corporate, then they would tend to follow that direction. Until that time, if corporate has to get down to that level of management, they don't need the store manager.

 

If you lease a car, you are responsible for what happens to and with that car. Land owners lease their property with the expectation that the leasee will care for that property and accept responsiblity for the activities that occur there. Otherwise, they would manage the property.

 

I'm no lawyer, but that's the way things appear to work to me.

Link to comment
... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.
What bugs me is that you are so strident about the issue when you've stated that this isn't an issue at all in your neck of the woods. It's strange that you're demanding action on a hypothetical issue (unless you are just trying to do away with caches that you don't like).
And you just stated that you don't own or are not in the market to place a CPC, right? How is that any different? I suppose that we both care about the game and the people play it enough to have a conversation about the bigger picture?
The difference is simple. Your ranting about something that doesn't affect you. You have no interest in placing these caches and there are none in your area placed. While I am not currently interested in owning additional caches, I am still seeking them. There are certainly CPC/LPCs in my area and in those areas that I travel. As I come upon them, I will enjoy logging them.

 

Does that make it clearer for you?

 

If I didn't travel and run into them, yes. Since I do, no.. I see very little difference really.

Link to comment
Apparently we've found your personal boundary then. You can argue that you don't think the placing of CPCs without permission of the owner is much of a problem, that the number of caches in Walmart or BBS stores is greatly exaggerated, that GC.com is well aware of all the CPCs out there and has done their homework to cover themselves legally but you are not willing to make the next step for the reasons that you stated.

 

It is not debatable that the next step you don't want to take would involve -actually doing something- in the real world, instead of stating your case so eloquently in the Groundspeak forum. I hope you don't cry foul when someone else, that might not agree with your personal views, steps up and does it.

I have no idea what your point is in this post, but I think I might be able to help you clarify the issue.

 

I believe that everyone should get adequate permission as required by the guidelines. When I hide a cache, I get appropriate permission.

 

I do not police the permission of others. Therefore, I am neither going to verify that any CPC/LPC owner has obtained permission nor am I going to ask for permission on behalf of anyone else.

 

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission, even if I believed that explicit permission was required for this type of hide.

 

I sincerely hope that this helped make it clear for you. Please let me know if it did not.

 

What is clear to me is that you are willing to spend hours arguing your point here in the forums. It's a debate that I have been on the other side of for longer than I would like to admit to participating in, mostly due to the lack of anything really productive coming out of it. Both sides of the fence are relying on a lot of speculation of what Walmart (and all BBS) already know, wants to avoid knowing, doesn't care about, and so on. I've reached a point where I think enough energy has been expended with no results. I'm suggesting that we find out and move on to the more fun aspects of geocaching.

 

Seeking answers in the real world is the only logical next step in my mind and if you are as sure about your position as you seem to be, I don't see why you wouldn't support this. You have to admit we are spending our time dividing up some mythical campground and nobody has really added anything fresh to the debate for some time now.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

Okay, the last couple of pages of this thread has confused me.

 

Should property owners/leasors have the right of approving/disapproving caches on their property? And if they do have that right shouldn't they be able to exercise that right before the cache is hidden? And does the answer to this question speak to the heart of whether a cache can be a "problem" or not?

 

My head is spinning from all the double talk.

 

You've got it right. The property owner/lessors should have the right to approve or disapprove caches on their property and that is exactly what Camp 3 is advocating. You can check in with the other two camps about the confusing parts such as levels of approval, need for approval, type of approval, implied approval and so on but you'd better do it quickly.. they probably don't have an overnight permit to camp there.

Link to comment
What is clear to me is that you are willing to spend hours arguing your point here in the forums. It's a debate that I have been on the other side of for longer than I would like to admit to participating in, mostly due to the lack of anything really productive coming out of it. Both sides of the fence are relying on a lot of speculation of what Walmart (and all BBS) already know, wants to avoid knowing, doesn't care about, and so on. I've reached a point where I think enough energy has been expended with no results. I'm suggesting that we find out and move on to the more fun aspects of geocaching.

 

Seeking answers in the real world is the only logical next step in my mind and if you are as sure about your position as you seem to be, I don't see why you wouldn't support this....

You're still not listening:

Then why not take the bull by the horns and do it yourself ... ? ... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

Your premise it that it needs to be done at all. I disagree with your premise. Many of us disagree with this premise, and have been telling you this for quite a while now.

Where there is no problem, there is no need for a solution. I can't speak for others, but you haven't convinced me yet that there is any need to "shake the hornet's nest" which is how I believe TAR phrased it.

 

Besides, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others what they should think and how they should behave, why not just do this yourself? One should be careful what one asks for, however ... and be wary of the ol' Law Of Unintended Consequences.

Link to comment

Also -- you never answered my question:

 

Slowing growth, controlling growth, and critical mass were all things I was discussing there. I never -once- said that we should do away with any kind of cache.

So ... you're not talking about banning all CPC hides, you're only talking about banning or preventing some of them? Is that what you mean? If not, how else to you forsee Groundspeak "slowing growth, controlling growth" or preventing so-called "critical mass?"

 

Banning all of a particular type of hide vs. banning only a specified percentage of them is still "banning." The difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and the arguments that have been presented are equally valid against either suggestion.

I'm still curious to hear a clarification as to exactly what level of bannination of other people's caches you're trying to accomplish.

Link to comment
What is clear to me is that you are willing to spend hours arguing your point here in the forums. It's a debate that I have been on the other side of for longer than I would like to admit to participating in, mostly due to the lack of anything really productive coming out of it. Both sides of the fence are relying on a lot of speculation of what Walmart (and all BBS) already know, wants to avoid knowing, doesn't care about, and so on. I've reached a point where I think enough energy has been expended with no results. I'm suggesting that we find out and move on to the more fun aspects of geocaching.

 

Seeking answers in the real world is the only logical next step in my mind and if you are as sure about your position as you seem to be, I don't see why you wouldn't support this. You have to admit we are spending our time dividing up some mythical campground and nobody has really added anything fresh to the debate for some time now.

If you believe that you are wasting your time, step out of the discussion. I feel that my time is well spent, so I'll stick (to the extent that the discussion works into my life's schedule. For instance, I stepped away from both threads for over a week during my recent vacation). Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
... You can check in with the other two camps about the confusing parts such as levels of approval, need for approval, type of approval, implied approval and so on but you'd better do it quickly.. they probably don't have an overnight permit to camp there.
I'm not an RVer, but I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart doesn't require permits for camping. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Holy cow, people! The horse is DEAD....

No, it's not.

 

Team Geoblast remains convinced that Something Needs To Be Done, and is maybe even about to show us all How It's Done. He wants to "slow and control the growth" of a particular type of cache that happens to bother him.

 

As long as there are folks trying to force others to cache their way, I will continue to speak my opinion and argue against their crusade.

 

As long as there are folks trying to get legitimate benign caches (that I and others enjoy finding) prevented or pulled from the site, I will continue to speak my opinion and argue against their crusade.

 

Failure to speak up can sometimes be mistaken as agreement.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

It's a fair question. And I have a good answer. But because you've ignored multiple question of mine in the past (and not just by accident, I've pointed them out to you and you've specifically said you weren't going to answer), I'm not going to answer this one.

 

I don't want to feed the argument monster. :laughing:

Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

In any corporate or governmental setting there will be very few people empowered to say 'yes' to anything.

 

The vast majority can only say 'no'. Middle management has a book of rules (if not physical then metaphorical) and if it isn't in the rulebook the answer is no.

 

No one ever got fired for saying no to geocaching, so that is the first and safest response.

 

There is no risk to 'no'.

 

Saying no takes zero effort, time or thought... in fact most secretaries and middle-managers are hired specifically to say no and protect their boss from the madcap schemers and salesman that approach the organization.

 

Anyone with the power to say 'yes' is behind a screener, if not a flock of them.

 

Identifying, contacting, getting to and convincing the person with the power to say yes is every salesman's toughest job, and in this case it would take the research to identify who can say yes, the ability to get in front of that person, and a convincing sales pitch to explain why our game benefits them personally such that they are willing to overcome their natural and professional inclination to say no and be done with it.

 

Then, once you convince someone in power that our cause is worthy, they will have to run it through their legal department, who's first response to most any request of this nature will be no. Risk avoidance is their job. They are good at it.

 

Unless your 'yes' man has real interest in and determination to see it through and negotiate on your behalf you are going to get an email from his secretary saying "Sorry, legal said no".

 

I would say that without an 'in' at the Vice President level who is willing to work to support our application the inevitable answer will be no.

 

Not that they might have anything in particular against geocaching, thats just the way the world works.

Link to comment
I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

First, I doubt that blanket permission would be given. I suspect that they would want to handle this issue on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I think I already answered your question in this post:
Or, are you suggesting that if someone -really- asked permission and it was brought to their attention what was -really- happening on their property on a global level that geocaching would get banned on their property?
I think that it's all about the negotiating skills and motivations of the asker. I'm pretty sure that one of those that posted in the other thread with an axe to grind could get them denied very quickly. (BTW, I also still believe that it's silly to believe that Wal-Mart and most other corporations aren't already well aware of geocaching and would have taken action if they thought that it was a problem. Further, forcing the corporate powers that be to make a formal decision regarding it may result in denial since they would no longer be able to maintain plausible deniability.
Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

I agree with what TAR said--having worked for that sort of business for over 10 looooong years of my life.

 

And I'll add this....Another reason not to say "Yes" is that few upper level people truely want to dictate minor policy to all the individual store managers simply because what is a 'good idea' in one place is not always a good idea in another setting. Since "whether to allow a geocache on all properties" (or not) is not related to "how to operate the shop" it's not something most corperate biggies would appreciate being asked to decide. You'd have people who disliked your mandate either way, and it's just not worth the grief.

 

Making local decisions for non-retail policy really is the responsibility and privilege of individual property managers

Link to comment
I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

I agree with what TAR said--having worked for that sort of business for over 10 looooong years of my life.

 

And I'll add this....Another reason not to say "Yes" is that few upper level people truely want to dictate minor policy to all the individual store managers simply because what is a 'good idea' in one place is not always a good idea in another setting. Since "whether to allow a geocache on all properties" (or not) is not related to "how to operate the shop" it's not something most corperate biggies would appreciate being asked to decide. You'd have people who disliked your mandate either way, and it's just not worth the grief.

 

Making local decisions for non-retail policy really is the responsibility and privilege of individual property managers

You also have the issue of whether the Big Box has the authority to approve them at all their stores. Last week I went to a Target that was acually in a mall. Certainly, that Target doesn't have any authority as to whether a geocache is placed in the mall's parking lot.
Link to comment
What is clear to me is that you are willing to spend hours arguing your point here in the forums. It's a debate that I have been on the other side of for longer than I would like to admit to participating in, mostly due to the lack of anything really productive coming out of it. Both sides of the fence are relying on a lot of speculation of what Walmart (and all BBS) already know, wants to avoid knowing, doesn't care about, and so on. I've reached a point where I think enough energy has been expended with no results. I'm suggesting that we find out and move on to the more fun aspects of geocaching.

 

Seeking answers in the real world is the only logical next step in my mind and if you are as sure about your position as you seem to be, I don't see why you wouldn't support this....

You're still not listening:

Then why not take the bull by the horns and do it yourself ... ? ... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

Your premise it that it needs to be done at all. I disagree with your premise. Many of us disagree with this premise, and have been telling you this for quite a while now.

Where there is no problem, there is no need for a solution. I can't speak for others, but you haven't convinced me yet that there is any need to "shake the hornet's nest" which is how I believe TAR phrased it.

 

Besides, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others what they should think and how they should behave, why not just do this yourself? One should be careful what one asks for, however ... and be wary of the ol' Law Of Unintended Consequences.

 

I'm actually not opposed to doing it but here's why I have reservations. If one of the pro CPC people do it, they are being proactive.. you know, doing the right thing. If I do it, I'm being a Geocop and trying to ruin things for thousands of Wally World shoppers/cachers. I am pretty sure that there's several folks that sit in my camp that would be happy that we are wrong if I was granted explict permission to place the cache. It would certainly give us all something real to discuss.

Link to comment

Also -- you never answered my question:

 

Slowing growth, controlling growth, and critical mass were all things I was discussing there. I never -once- said that we should do away with any kind of cache.

So ... you're not talking about banning all CPC hides, you're only talking about banning or preventing some of them? Is that what you mean? If not, how else to you forsee Groundspeak "slowing growth, controlling growth" or preventing so-called "critical mass?"

 

Banning all of a particular type of hide vs. banning only a specified percentage of them is still "banning." The difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and the arguments that have been presented are equally valid against either suggestion.

I'm still curious to hear a clarification as to exactly what level of bannination of other people's caches you're trying to accomplish.

 

Talk about someone not listening. My concern is about -any cache- that is placed that could possibly effect my ability to Geocache. Something that could happen system wide, shut things down, things like that. I'dfeel the same way if someone was putting ammo cans in National Parks and somehow skirt the permission issue too.

Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

It's a fair question. And I have a good answer. But because you've ignored multiple question of mine in the past (and not just by accident, I've pointed them out to you and you've specifically said you weren't going to answer), I'm not going to answer this one.

 

I don't want to feed the argument monster. :laughing:

 

Please. This question is at the core this whole discussion. Not answering it is just as good as answering it.

Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

In any corporate or governmental setting there will be very few people empowered to say 'yes' to anything.

 

The vast majority can only say 'no'. Middle management has a book of rules (if not physical then metaphorical) and if it isn't in the rulebook the answer is no.

 

No one ever got fired for saying no to geocaching, so that is the first and safest response.

 

There is no risk to 'no'.

 

Saying no takes zero effort, time or thought... in fact most secretaries and middle-managers are hired specifically to say no and protect their boss from the madcap schemers and salesman that approach the organization.

 

Anyone with the power to say 'yes' is behind a screener, if not a flock of them.

 

Identifying, contacting, getting to and convincing the person with the power to say yes is every salesman's toughest job, and in this case it would take the research to identify who can say yes, the ability to get in front of that person, and a convincing sales pitch to explain why our game benefits them personally such that they are willing to overcome their natural and professional inclination to say no and be done with it.

 

Then, once you convince someone in power that our cause is worthy, they will have to run it through their legal department, who's first response to most any request of this nature will be no. Risk avoidance is their job. They are good at it.

 

Unless your 'yes' man has real interest in and determination to see it through and negotiate on your behalf you are going to get an email from his secretary saying "Sorry, legal said no".

 

I would say that without an 'in' at the Vice President level who is willing to work to support our application the inevitable answer will be no.

 

Not that they might have anything in particular against geocaching, thats just the way the world works.

 

I appreciate your answer to this question. Please allow me paraphase it, " I do not think that permission as required by GC.com could be obtained to place a geocache on a Walmart property."

 

So, either we need to ask GC.com to alter their permission policies or stop placing these caches, right?

Link to comment
I appreciate your answer to this question. Please allow me paraphase it, " I do not think that permission as required by GC.com could be obtained to place a geocache on a Walmart property."

 

So, either we need to ask GC.com to alter their permission policies or stop placing these caches, right?

Clan Riffster asked a question about blanket permission. We answered the question. Do not try to twist our answers to make it appear that we are talking about individual permissions.

 

BTW, you still are apparently confused about GC.com's permission requirement.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

First, I doubt that blanket permission would be given. I suspect that they would want to handle this issue on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I think I already answered your question in this post:
Or, are you suggesting that if someone -really- asked permission and it was brought to their attention what was -really- happening on their property on a global level that geocaching would get banned on their property?
I think that it's all about the negotiating skills and motivations of the asker. I'm pretty sure that one of those that posted in the other thread with an axe to grind could get them denied very quickly. (BTW, I also still believe that it's silly to believe that Wal-Mart and most other corporations aren't already well aware of geocaching and would have taken action if they thought that it was a problem. Further, forcing the corporate powers that be to make a formal decision regarding it may result in denial since they would no longer be able to maintain plausible deniability.

 

If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.

Link to comment
If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.
From this post, it is clear that you are VERY confused about GC.com's permission requirement.
Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

It's a fair question. And I have a good answer. But because you've ignored multiple question of mine in the past (and not just by accident, I've pointed them out to you and you've specifically said you weren't going to answer), I'm not going to answer this one.

 

I don't want to feed the argument monster. :blink:

 

Please. This question is at the core this whole discussion. Not answering it is just as good as answering it.

I totally agree. In fact, I'll direct you to the third word in my first reply. Fair. It's a totally fair question, totally on topic, at the core of the discussion. Not answering it just because I didn't want to debate the thread topic in the thread is weak at best.

 

However, this is exactly what happened when I posed a fair, on topic, core of the discussion to Clan Riffster and he chose to ignore it.

 

When he does it, he's avoiding feeding the argument monster. When I do it to make a point, I'm told "Please". Somehow I picture you throwing your hand in the air and snapping your fingers as you say that.

Link to comment

Nevermind. It's not really worth going over again if your not going to listen to reason.

 

You certainly don't do "real" very well. Are you worried that we actually might make some progress and have a real world scenario to discuss? Or heaven forbid actually answer this question and move on to something else.. maybe free up some more time to actually go geocaching?

Link to comment
I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

First, I doubt that blanket permission would be given. I suspect that they would want to handle this issue on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I think I already answered your question in this post:
Or, are you suggesting that if someone -really- asked permission and it was brought to their attention what was -really- happening on their property on a global level that geocaching would get banned on their property?
I think that it's all about the negotiating skills and motivations of the asker. I'm pretty sure that one of those that posted in the other thread with an axe to grind could get them denied very quickly. (BTW, I also still believe that it's silly to believe that Wal-Mart and most other corporations aren't already well aware of geocaching and would have taken action if they thought that it was a problem. Further, forcing the corporate powers that be to make a formal decision regarding it may result in denial since they would no longer be able to maintain plausible deniability.

 

If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.

Apparently you completely missed this post. Clan Riffster says he's gotten permission for a CPC, so don't assume that this is unexplored.

Link to comment
Nevermind. It's not really worth going over again if your not going to listen to reason.
You certainly don't do "real" very well. Are you worried that we actually might make some progress and have a real world scenario to discuss? Or heaven forbid actually answer this question and move on to something else.. maybe free up some more time to actually go geocaching?
Actually, my response was to your previous comparison of ammo boxes in national parks to micros in parking lots and how they are different issues for three or four reasons. You had no question to answer in that post.

 

If you want me to respond to your other post, fine. Here it is: That issue is between Clan Riffster and Mushtang. You should butt out.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

It's a fair question. And I have a good answer. But because you've ignored multiple question of mine in the past (and not just by accident, I've pointed them out to you and you've specifically said you weren't going to answer), I'm not going to answer this one.

 

I don't want to feed the argument monster. :blink:

 

Please. This question is at the core this whole discussion. Not answering it is just as good as answering it.

I totally agree. In fact, I'll direct you to the third word in my first reply. Fair. It's a totally fair question, totally on topic, at the core of the discussion. Not answering it just because I didn't want to debate the thread topic in the thread is weak at best.

 

However, this is exactly what happened when I posed a fair, on topic, core of the discussion to Clan Riffster and he chose to ignore it.

 

When he does it, he's avoiding feeding the argument monster. When I do it to make a point, I'm told "Please". Somehow I picture you throwing your hand in the air and snapping your fingers as you say that.

 

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

Link to comment
If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.
Apparently you completely missed this post. Clan Riffster says he's gotten permission for a CPC, so don't assume that this is unexplored.
Other examples were also discussed in this thread, but why cloud the issue with reality.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...