Stupid rules of the game

[+paarker]

I thought I would do the right thing by preforming maintenance on a cache that needed it. Apparently the cache owner is not a validated member and no maintenance has been done in years. So I go out and find the cache replace the broken Tupperware container with an ammo can. Which by the way I left stocked with new trade goodies. I then proceed to ask to adopt the cache but get this, I was told that since there is not a issue with the cache ( I just fixed it) it cannot be adopted out. I was told that a cache must be in need of maintenance for at least 30 days before it can be adopted out. Even though there is issue with the container since July 14 2001.

All this seems to tell me is not to care about the next finder and just let it get moldy and stinky and just plain not care. Even though this was not my problem I just thought I would do my part but no more.

Has anyone else ran into this or something just as stupid.

Paarker

[+weathernowcast]

The cache you are talking about (GC2EA) has only been marked in need of maintenance since March 21, 2007. One can tell this by looking at the logs. On April 21, 2007 they should allow someone to adopt it if the current owner has not removed the "red cross" by that time. The fact that you returned the original container has nothing to do with the "needs maintenance" status. I would also not be so upset. Most of the reviewers are volunteers, they deserve out admiration.

Edited April 11, 2007 by weathernowcast

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I thought I would do the right thing by preforming maintenance on a cache that needed it. Apparently the cache owner is not a validated member and no maintenance has been done in years. So I go out and find the cache replace the broken Tupperware container with an ammo can. Which by the way I left stocked with new trade goodies. I then proceed to ask to adopt the cache but get this, I was told that since there is not a issue with the cache ( I just fixed it) it cannot be adopted out. I was told that a cache must be in need of maintenance for at least 30 days before it can be adopted out. Even though there is issue with the container since July 14 2001.

All this seems to tell me is not to care about the next finder and just let it get moldy and stinky and just plain not care. Even though this was not my problem I just thought I would do my part but no more.

Has anyone else ran into this or something just as stupid.

Paarker

 

Did you explain all this to your reviewer? We ran into a similar cache and once we explained we were allowed to adopt after a couple week waiting period even though it had been fixed up by then by volunteer effort. It has since been adopted again by some cachers who lived closer and could maintain it more conveniently. So give it another try, they may not have understood the first time.

Edited April 11, 2007 by fox-and-the-hound

[+Mopar]

The cache you are talking about (GC2EA) has only been marked in need of maintenance since March 21, 2007. One can tell this by looking at the logs. On April 21, 2007 the should allow you to adopt it if the current owner has not removed the "red cross" by that time. The fact that you returned the original container has nothing to do with the "needs maintenance" status. I would also not be so upset. Most of the reviewers are volunteers, they deserve out admiration.

The cache was marked as needing maintenance just a few weeks ago. Yea, chances are the owner is long gone and wont be fixing their cache, but you have to at least give them a chance to fix it before taking their cache from them. I also noticed that the person who marked it as needing maintenance March 21 offered to adopt it at that time, so it seems like they are first in line to adopt it.

Those are the facts.

 

Now, here's my personal opinion. I don't think you should be allowed to adopt that cache just 'cause you're acting like a baby. Going out and fixing that cache was a great thing to do out of kindness. However, by your later actions on the cache (taking back the replacement cache and putting the broken cache back in it's place) and posting this forum thread it looks like the only reason you did it was because you expected the cache to become yours.

Do you really think it's a stupid rule to give the owner 4 weeks to fix their property before confiscating their cache and their cache page? How would you feel if you came back from a nice vacation to find someone else now owns your cache because you didn't maintain it within 2 weeks? Like I said, in this case I'd bet money that the owners are MIA and have abandoned this particular cache; but the rule is there for a reason and it's far from a stupid one.

[+paarker]

The cache you are talking about (GC2EA) has only been marked in need of maintenance since March 21, 2007. One can tell this by looking at the logs. On April 21, 2007 the should allow you to adopt it if the current owner has not removed the "red cross" by that time. The fact that you returned the original container has nothing to do with the "needs maintenance" status. I would also not be so upset. Most of the reviewers are volunteers, they deserve out admiration.

The cache was marked as needing maintenance just a few weeks ago. Yea, chances are the owner is long gone and wont be fixing their cache, but you have to at least give them a chance to fix it before taking their cache from them. I also noticed that the person who marked it as needing maintenance March 21 offered to adopt it at that time, so it seems like they are first in line to adopt it.

Those are the facts.

 

Now, here's my personal opinion. I don't think you should be allowed to adopt that cache just 'cause you're acting like a baby. Going out and fixing that cache was a great thing to do out of kindness. However, by your later actions on the cache (taking back the replacement cache and putting the broken cache back in it's place) and posting this forum thread it looks like the only reason you did it was because you expected the cache to become yours.

Do you really think it's a stupid rule to give the owner 4 weeks to fix their property before confiscating their cache and their cache page? How would you feel if you came back from a nice vacation to find someone else now owns your cache because you didn't maintain it within 2 weeks? Like I said, in this case I'd bet money that the owners are MIA and have abandoned this particular cache; but the rule is there for a reason and it's far from a stupid one.

 

If you had taking the time to read the logs it was stated back on July 14 2001 that there was a hole in the container. So if the owner has been on vacation for over 6 years I could see your point.

It is not about adopting a cache it is about maintaining it. It does not bother me who has the cache as long as someone maintains it.

There is nothing worst then going out and dumping wet smelly contents out and the owner does nothing about it.

As for acting like a baby I would say I am acting like the stubborn Dutchman that I am. I am just trying to see what else rules apply to the game that I am not aware of.

[+Renegade Knight]

.... If you had taking the time to read the logs it was stated back on July 14 2001 that there was a hole in the container. So if the owner has been on vacation for over 6 years I could see your point.

It is not about adopting a cache it is about maintaining it. It does not bother me who has the cache as long as someone maintains it.

There is nothing worst then going out and dumping wet smelly contents out and the owner does nothing about it....

 

I for one would would have no problem allowing the owner an entire year to get around to maintaining their cache before it was involuntarily adopted out to someone else.

 

Having dumped out water and many moldy and smelly cache contents in my time I invested in a pen that writes on wet log books. There are many, many things worse than what you describe.

 

If it was about maintaining then you would have done what you did, emailed the owner, and called it a good deed.

[+olbluesguy]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

[+Mopar]

If you had taking the time to read the logs it was stated back on July 14 2001 that there was a hole in the container. So if the owner has been on vacation for over 6 years I could see your point.

It is not about adopting a cache it is about maintaining it. It does not bother me who has the cache as long as someone maintains it.

There is nothing worst then going out and dumping wet smelly contents out and the owner does nothing about it.

As for acting like a baby I would say I am acting like the stubborn Dutchman that I am. I am just trying to see what else rules apply to the game that I am not aware of.

Actually, I did take the time to read all the logs before I first replied. Since you bring it up...

You're making it sound like the cache was a wet, moldy mess that's been ignored since 7/2001.

Of all the logs from 2001 to march 6, 2004 that mention the crack/hole in the cache; not one said it was a problem. As a matter of fact, most commented that the cache was in good shape in spite of the crack. March 6, 2004 is the last log to even mention a non-problematic crack/hole until a few weeks ago. For 3+ years not one finder even mentions any crack or hole (was it fixed or replaced maybe?). In the 6yrs+ the cache has been out (making it one of the longest surviving caches in that area) not a single person complained the cache was wet, leaking or otherwise in bad shape until March 21, 2007. Many finders before that date even commented what a great cache it was. Why would GC.com or their reviewers think it was a problem before then even if they read every single log on every single cache out there?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

Silly me. I went looking for a cache listed as being a bit under the weather. So, I brought along a new container. Not interested in adopting it. Just helping out.

[+Polgara]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

He could have handled it better? By whose perception? He hiked out there, and performed maintenance.....just like he has on a number of other caches on past hikes. I know this because many times I have hiked with him, along with others, and performed maintenance, along with the others. I find it laughable that you see this as Paarker claiming "dibs" on anything, especially since his caches are quite reputable in his caching playground. He was just being kind.

 

His interest also lets reviewers know that more than 1 person has considered adoption, which is not a bad thing. CCCooperagency and Paarker do know each other, and regardless of who adopts the cache, I see them remaining supportive of one another, as they have been supportive of one another in the past.

[+Mopar]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

He could have handled it better? By whose perception? He hiked out there, and performed maintenance.....just like he has on a number of other caches on past hikes.

I think the part he could of handled better was the part you didn't mention. Where he hiked back out again and unperformed maintenance (took back the replacement cache and put back the leaking one) because he was told he couldn't adopt the cache right away. According to him he wasn't even told he couldn't adopt it, just he had to give the owner a reasonable chance to respond first. That seems awful childish to me.

The other part that could have been handled better was in posting this topic. He could have just posted a simple question about why one has to wait 30 days for a forced adoption, instead of ranting about stupid rules and how he's never going to help maintain another cache because he couldn't adopt this one right away.

[+Klatch]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

He could have handled it better? By whose perception? He hiked out there, and performed maintenance.....just like he has on a number of other caches on past hikes.

I think the part he could of handled better was the part you didn't mention. Where he hiked back out again and unperformed maintenance (took back the replacement cache and put back the leaking one) because he was told he couldn't adopt the cache right away. According to him he wasn't even told he couldn't adopt it, just he had to give the owner a reasonable chance to respond first. That seems awful childish to me.

The other part that could have been handled better was in posting this topic. He could have just posted a simple question about why one has to wait 30 days for a forced adoption, instead of ranting about stupid rules and how he's never going to help maintain another cache because he couldn't adopt this one right away.

First, let me say he did not undo his maintenance. The ammo can, filled to the brim with new trade items, is still in place. His "needs maintenance" log was to start the adoption process again. Maybe not stated clearly, his original complaint was being told he could not adopt the cache because he performed the maintenance and the cache no longer had a maintenance issue. He was not complaining about the waiting period, he was complaining that the waiting period could only begin after a needs maintenance log was posted and he just stopped the process by performing the maintenance. Since it no longer needs maintenance, no flag. No one needs adopt it now.

[+wvcoalcat]

First, let me say he did not undo his maintenance. <snip>

 

Maybe so, but that's not what his log says.

 

April 11 by paarker (391 found)

Since maintenance cannot be preform and then adopted out. I put the broken Tupperware dish back now if I really want this cache all I have to do is wait 30 days. That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

 

Paarker

[+Klatch]

First, let me say he did not undo his maintenance. <snip>

 

Maybe so, but that's not what his log says.

 

April 11 by paarker (391 found)

Since maintenance cannot be preform and then adopted out. I put the broken Tupperware dish back now if I really want this cache all I have to do is wait 30 days. That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

 

Paarker

Please read my post carefully. I explained why he posted the "needs maintenance" log, based on the response he received from the reviewer.

[+weathernowcast]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

He could have handled it better? By whose perception? He hiked out there, and performed maintenance.....just like he has on a number of other caches on past hikes.

I think the part he could of handled better was the part you didn't mention. Where he hiked back out again and unperformed maintenance (took back the replacement cache and put back the leaking one) because he was told he couldn't adopt the cache right away. According to him he wasn't even told he couldn't adopt it, just he had to give the owner a reasonable chance to respond first. That seems awful childish to me.

The other part that could have been handled better was in posting this topic. He could have just posted a simple question about why one has to wait 30 days for a forced adoption, instead of ranting about stupid rules and how he's never going to help maintain another cache because he couldn't adopt this one right away.

First, let me say he did not undo his maintenance. The ammo can, filled to the brim with new trade items, is still in place. His "needs maintenance" log was to start the adoption process again. Maybe not stated clearly, his original complaint was being told he could not adopt the cache because he performed the maintenance and the cache no longer had a maintenance issue. He was not complaining about the waiting period, he was complaining that the waiting period could only begin after a needs maintenance log was posted and he just stopped the process by performing the maintenance. Since it no longer needs maintenance, no flag. No one needs adopt it now.

 

I was going to say the red first aid icon is still on the cache so I went to double check. Yes it is still on showing it needs maintenance.

 

However, the cache, GC2EA, is now no longer active.

 

See most recent post:

 

April 11 by OReviewer (42 found)

This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines: (visit link)

I've added this cache to my watchlist, and I will check back in four weeks to be sure that the maintenance has been done. In the meantime, I have temporarily disabled this listing. When the maintenance is completed, the owner can re-enable the listing by clicking on the link below the cache name.

 

I note that the owner has not visited the website for more than six months. If owner has not contacted me via this page or email within four weeks, this cache will either be archived or adopted.

 

Thank you,

OReviewer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

so someone can adopt it in four weeks.

[+wvcoalcat]

First, let me say he did not undo his maintenance. <snip>

 

Maybe so, but that's not what his log says.

 

April 11 by paarker (391 found)

Since maintenance cannot be preform and then adopted out. I put the broken Tupperware dish back now if I really want this cache all I have to do is wait 30 days. That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

 

Paarker

Please read my post carefully. I explained why he posted the "needs maintenance" log, based on the response he received from the reviewer.

 

So the log I quoted is an untruth? The ammo can is actually in place?

Edited April 12, 2007 by wvcoalcat

[Keystone]

Today's adoption procedures are a lot stricter than they were a few years ago. As the website grew larger, more and more problems occurred. The adoption procedures contain safeguards against recurrences of those problems.

 

Waiting for four weeks and making efforts to contact the owner doesn't seem quite so "stupid" when the owner resurfaces after the adoption and is outraged to find out that his cache has been taken out from under him and given away. His hide count decreases by one, and he's lost a container. Those are some of the most spitting mad e-mails I've ever received, and I get lots of them. Multiply my experiences by dozens of other reviewers, and all the venemous e-mails received by the Geocaching.com website, and you can maybe see why the website implemented a deliberate process for non-consensual cache adoptions.

 

It's just a piece of tupperware in the woods. Give the owner a chance to respond, and if they don't, the adoption can be processed. I think CCCooperAgency would be a terrific owner for this fine old cache and I thank her for offering. I'm also thankful for paarker's interest in maintaining the cache and for the backup adoption offer.

 

For more information about the cache adoption process, see this post in the FAQ thread that's pinned at the top of the "Getting Started" forum.

[+olbluesguy]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

Silly me. I went looking for a cache listed as being a bit under the weather. So, I brought along a new container. Not interested in adopting it. Just helping out.

 

Then he got PO and took the new container and put the old one back.

Yes he could have handeled it better or we would not be having this discussion.

#1 contact the owner

#2 If no contact could be made contact the local reviewer and state your case.

If the owner has been absent for a long period of time , and there are problems there may be a possibility that the cache can be archived,and you can place a brand new cache in its place.

If so it could be archived almost immediatly.No 30 day waiting period just go out and place the new cache.

 

Here's the course I took on a cache that was not found in nearly two years,and the owner has been absent for one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...40-a6757106dc9e

 

Request made Mar.22.......New cache listed in it's place March24.

[+weathernowcast]

Yes you could have handled it better, and now you know not to replace a cache utill all options have been exausted.

The policy is not stupid, but thinking you could just go out there and do what you want when you can plainly see someone else has "DIBS" on adopting it might be close.

You couldn't just leave the new container ? ...Jeeeeeez!

 

Silly me. I went looking for a cache listed as being a bit under the weather. So, I brought along a new container. Not interested in adopting it. Just helping out.

 

Then he got PO and took the new container and put the old one back.

Yes he could have handeled it better or we would not be having this discussion.

#1 contact the owner

#2 If no contact could be made contact the local reviewer and state your case.

If the owner has been absent for a long period of time , and there are problems there may be a possibility that the cache can be archived,and you can place a brand new cache in its place.

If so it could be archived almost immediatly.No 30 day waiting period just go out and place the new cache.

 

Here's the course I took on a cache that was not found in nearly two years,and the owner has been absent for one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...40-a6757106dc9e

 

Request made Mar.22.......New cache listed in it's place March24.

 

I think caches that are >5 years old should be adopted if possible. There are so few caches that are >5 years old that I really enjoy visiting them no matter how "new" the container is. I am in agreement with paarker there that this great cache should be adopted and not archived if at all possible. I would like to visit it someday.

[+paarker]

OK all ,my point of the thread is not about actually adopting this cache. It is about being told I could not because I performed "maintenance" and it was no longer needed. So there was no need to adopt it. That is it nothing more to it.

 

And yes the ammo can is still there I am really not that much of an --- .

[Motorcycle_Mama]

So, if the cache is fixed now, why would it need to be adopted?

[+BlueDeuce]

Sorry, thought this was the general forum, again.

Edited April 13, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+BrianDiane]

So, if the cache is fixed now, why would it need to be adopted?

[+BrianDiane]

So, if the cache is fixed now, why would it need to be adopted?

 

Great thing about this sport .... good people all trying to do their best to keep the whole process working for everyone's delight. Thank you all.

[+Packanack]

I was told that since there is not a issue with the cache ( I just fixed it) it cannot be adopted out. I was told that a cache must be in need of maintenance for at least 30 days before it can be adopted out.

 

So you want out of the Army because you are crazy, well if you know you want out of the Army you can't be crazy, and if you are not crazy then you can't get out of the Army. Joseph Heller wrote a book on a similar subject, I believe it was called CATCH 22

 

MURPHY'S OTHER LAW

 

NO GOOD DEED SHALL EVER GO UNPUNISHED.

 

You ought to come out to NJ, we have caches that go years on the needs maintenance listing, 10 , 12 cachers all come and log it, put log entries on line that say cache is full of water/ice/mud but don't think to mark it as needing maint.

 

The good moderator says"It is just tupperware in the woods" well when it gets abandoned it then becomes litter in the woods.

[+Team Geo-Joes]

Rules are in place for a reason. Whether or not we agree with them, we should follow them to ensure the survival and fairness of the game. I do not think it fair to call them stupid. just my opinion.....

[+briansnat]

So, if the cache is fixed now, why would it need to be adopted?

 

So one person takes responsibility for it. The community does a great job of fixing up abandoned caches, but can't be counted on all the time. There are many abandoned caches that go months or longer without needed maintenance.

[+edscott]

So, if the cache is fixed now, why would it need to be adopted?

 

Because the "parent" didn't care enough to fix it, but instead left it up to someone else to do the job. Sort of like lots of other adoptions.

[+Mach2003]

OK I just don't get it... We carry cache repair items, including enpty containers, pencils, log books.. all the time.

Often we replace or add items to a needy cache.

 

Why would it matter if it was adopted?

 

As long as teh cache is good to go, who cares?

 

If, in time, the cache needs maint. again: Fix it.

 

Do you need to "own" the cache to keep it alive?

[+Packanack]

Do you need to "own" the cache to keep it alive?

 

First, you are not keeping it alive, you are allowing it to remain.

The usual case is not where the cache is "good to go" but when it is a soggy, muddy mess, chewed through by mice and thereafter comes to the attention of some misguided but well meaning sort who will point to it as an abuse of the environment, even though the impact is minimal.

 

Second And the way the listing service works is that someone (some one person) is responsible for the cache--presumably the person who placed it, and when that one person disappears, moves, dies (sadly this has happened), suffers some disability , family problem, illness there will be one person who through adoption will take presumptive responsibility for the cache. Why ? So that the land manager acting on behalf of the public ownership can be assured that we (Cachersin general) are acting communally responsible. Once abandoned it is just geo litter.

 

Third--You (the figurative Geocacher you) put it there, you take care of it and make sure it does not become a problem. That is only right that you be responsible. And if there is a history of problem placements , perhaps they should be removed from the listing service that you use.