Premium Members only caches vs. "Commercial" caches, and by whose authority does Geocaching.com "control" geocaching?

[Sexy_Sally]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

Sally

[+flask]

i don't care about caches listed with other sites. you're welcome to do whatever that site's guidelines allow. you're even free to place your own caches that aren't listed on any other site.

 

i choose to play here. most cachers do. gc.com has no real authority other than that a LOT of cachers choose to play here, and although many do not play exclusively here, most do.

 

if you list caches here, you agree to abide by the guidelines. it's that simple.

[+briansnat]

Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

There is a difference. I think you already know it, so no need to spell it out.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site,

 

Geocaching.com has the authority to call themselves whatever they want to call themselves. Being that competing sites don't hold a candle to GC.com, I wouldn't say they are off base in calling themselves that.

 

 

You seem to know an awful lot about the sport, history of it and other issues for someone who just joined 2 days ago. I think some Dr Scholls might be in order.

[+Moose Mob]

Geocaching is a light and fun sport. Let's keep this thread that way, too.

[+ChileHead]

Geocaching.com gives itself the authority to control what caches are listed on geocaching.com. That's it.

[+stepshep]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

Sally

 

Not sure what all was said but I'll give my answers.

First of all a commercial cache is:

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

As was said geocaching.com doesn't control anything but geocaching.com. Not NaviCache, not Terracaching.

 

If the cache was listed on GC.com and went against the guidelines I would post a SBA. If it was within the guidelines of the listing site I would just log it. I would NEVER remove any cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

Groundspeak does not decide whether a cache is restricted to Premium Members, the cache owner does.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

Groundspeak certainly makes the rules for caches listed on this site; they own it, they can do that. As you acknowledge, you don't need Groundspeak or their geocaching.com listing service to go geocaching. You have options. If you don't like geocaching.com there are several other sites you can enjoy.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

The origins of the game have no relevance - Groundspeak picked up the ball and ran with it, making itself into the largest listing service in the world. Today it is what it is, no matter where it came from. Next year it might evolve into something else.

 

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

Leave it, maybe log it on the other site, but caches listed on other sites are of no relationship to caches posted here, and unless they are cross-posted Groundspeak's Guidelines in no way effect them.

Sally

[+ventura_kids]

Your posting feels more like buckshot... I don't know which topic to respond to.

Perhaps if you add some pics to your profile and gallery, you would resemble a sock puppet less.

[+TheManInStripes]

Looks like someone us bitter about something. How bout telling the rest of the story Sally.

[Mushtang]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

With Commercial caches, the site doesn't get any money from the limited access. They don't want us to have to pay someone else to play their game. With Members Only caches the member gets to hide these as a benefit to paying the site, to make it a little harder for pirates.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

They don't set the rules for everyone. Just for people that use this site.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

So? The inventor of the telephone is dead, so we shouldn't use telephones just because he doesn't use them anymore?

 

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

No problem, sock puppet troll. This one will probably be locked soon too, but mostly because sock puppet accounts get closed pretty quick.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

That's a strange question. Why wouldn't you leave it alone?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

There are lots of sites that approve caches for listing on their own, but a cache doesn't have to be listed on ANY site for it to be a cache. I could put one in my front yard and only tell people about it that I meet in restaurants. It would probably never get found, but it would still be a cache.

 

Sally

Rrrriiiiiiight.

[Mr.Yuck]

Looks like someone us bitter about something. How bout telling the rest of the story Sally.

 

Bitter is good. Trackinthebox was bitter. Trackinthebox was very entertaining.

[+ventura_kids]

This forum subject is listed twice. Perhaps close one or the other.

[Mushtang]

You seem to know an awful lot about the sport, history of it and other issues for someone who just joined 2 days ago. I think some Dr Scholls might be in order.

Indeed. I'm thinking the same thing.

[+Moose Mob]

Duplicate threads merged (I hope it isn't too confusing).

[+conradv]

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

What in the world does that have to do with Geocaching.com?

 

What would give you the right to remove something out in the world just because it is not allowed at Geocaching.com? If you are concerned with it, contact the owners of the other web site that it is listed on.

[+carleenp]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

Commerical caches are commerical because they advertise something, not because they restrict people from accessing them.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

Groundspeak, Inc., and they only set the rules for their own site, not for others.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

As far as I know he never sought to make his own web site. He could seek to do so if he wanted.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

It would depend. If it was violating a local park permit policy or other local rule that could jeopardize everyone's use of the area for caching if it were found, I at the very least would contact the owner and explain the problem. Otherwise, I would probably ignore it.

[+TotemLake]

Geocaching.com may not be the center of the universe, but it is the biggest center of gravity around. 08/22/2005

 

Almost sounds like Ju66l3r's post I replied to.

[+sbell111]

There sure is a bunch of 'rage against the machine' posting going on today.

[+wimseyguy]

I had no idea you could post so many characters in the title of a thread!

I'll have to try it the next time I have 6-8 issues to rage against.

[+Stunod]

1. Why does my post say ringbone?

2. I accept your apology.

3. Geocaching.com doesn't care about chinldren

4. <coming soon, I'm sure>

[+CYBret]

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

Dave's not here, man.

[+StarBrand]

Please feel free to get whatever site you can to list your proposed caches - but around here - there are guidelines to be followed.

 

Paying a fee to a commercial enterprise to access a cache is far different from a listing owner restricting it.

 

In the end Groundspeak is a business and will act with whatever it deems necessary to protect its business model.

[+TrailGators]

1. Why does my post say ringbone?

2. I accept your apology.

3. Geocaching.com doesn't care about chinldren

4. <coming soon, I'm sure>

Somebody is going to have to explain this "ringbone" thing again. Somehow, I missed out on that...

[+sbell111]

1. Why does my post say ringbone?

2. I accept your apology.

3. Geocaching.com doesn't care about chinldren

4. <coming soon, I'm sure>

Somebody is going to have to explain this "ringbone" thing again. Somehow, I missed out on that...

That may have been the funniest thread of all time.

 

Here you go.

Edited June 26, 2007 by sbell111

[Pto]

. .. In the end Groundspeak is a business and will act with whatever it deems necessary to protect its business model.

 

Including placing advertisements on Your cache page. Dont like it? Dont list it here, or accept your page becomes an advertising tool for Groundspeak.

[+flask]

i think it's unfair to categorize sally as a troll. it is likely that she is a sockpuppet, but if i were posting a question about nudist resorts, i might prefer to be anonymous until i see what the reaction is going to be.

 

i kind of resent the use of "textile", as if clothes wearing has a pejoritive connotation. if sally and her naturist friends want to deride the rest of us, that's just fine, but they ought to keep it among themselve if they want to get along out here.

 

and while i agree that nudisim is not abnormal and certainly not aberrant, a brief glance at anthropology will show that it is not particularly natural. although the amount and placement of the clothing differs from culture to culture, every culture of which i am aware has a tradition of wearing clothing.

 

i get the sense (and this is opinion and not based on any facts, so don't write in, ok?) that sally's agenda has somethng to do with bringing outsiders to the resort and hoping for them to go bare as they dare. kind of like sally and her other nudist geocaching friends wish to bring more geocachers to them. maybe not an unreasonable wish, but certainly bound to meet with some opposition and it would be silly for them to expect anything different. presumably they've been nudists for a long time and are aware of the general climate.

 

ive been to a cache at a nude beach. i do not often get the opportunity to chat with a gentleman sans pants. it was novel and he was very pleasant.

 

for the most part i prefer to keep my squishy bits covered and i have no desire to see yours. i'm not afraid or offended; i just like a little privacy. clothing (outside of the winter thing) is kind of like maintaining a separate residence, or having my own bedroom. i prefer to have my own capmsite at a campground. i like a little distance between me and other people. that distance gets decreased when either of us shows up without clothes.

[Mr.Yuck]

Geocaching.com gives itself the authority to control what caches are listed on geocaching.com. That's it.

 

Did someone say authoritah?

 

[+Cornerstone4]

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

Dave's not here, man.

 

C'mon man, open up, it's me DAVE!

[+Cache Heads]

Man, they are out in groves this week!

 

Ummm.... GC.com only controls what gets listed on GC.com.... if ya don't like their rules, list your "geocache" someplace else.

[+Planet]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

By that they mean you'd have to pay to get in, or it's a promotion for a place of business, and if someone can't afford the entrance fee, they don't have access.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

No, not the only fish in the sea, but they were the first, and so the official, and they have better working relationships with the land managers than any of the other sites, who will allow just about anything, giving geocaching a bad reputation with the land managers.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

He hid the first box an posted it online. And I thank him for that!! However, he did not invest the time, money etc... to set up the first user friendly website.

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

 

That's because you have no geocaching history to come in and start whining about a great site, those of us that like it here, like it here! As someone said, sock puppet, or in your case, a bare foot puppet. How would you like it if we came to your colony and started complaining about how things were run before we even got inside? Sheesh! Is that so hard to understand?

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

You leave it alone. I find letterboxes all the time, I just hide them again and look for the cache. I've never come across anything listed on another site, unless it was listed on both sites. If I found one that violated the geocaching.com guidelines, I'd post a note to the cache page, and leave the cache there. If it was a damaged ruined cache, I'd take it out, and post a needs maintenance, or should be archived on it.

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

I'd remove it only if it were completely ruined and was now litter.

 

Sally

 

It's really the most fun thing that I've ever found to keep me occupied, and I've met tons of new friends. It's people who have no finds, no hides, just complaints that take the fun out of it for me. Thanks.

 

I read your other thread, and I've done the Naked Truth cache and frankly, I'm glad I was forewarned, but there is one image I can't get out of my head still, 3 years later. Some people should not be naked in public. But we're talking about placing a cache in a nudist colony, and that wasn't a nudist colony, it was a nude bathing area. I don't think I would walk into a nudist colony for any cache. I would be too uncomfortable entering a private colony. I doubt they'd want people too anyway.

Sally, you should talk to nudecacher, he's been caching for years, and has been through all this before.

I once went to someone's house and it wasn't until after I was there that they went into another room, came back naked and said, I hope you don't mind, I'm a nudist. Yes I mind! You bet I mind!! You could have warned me first. So if you do want to place that cache, make sure you warn people.

[Clan Riffster]

Can I steal that for my avatar?

[crawil]

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

Dave's not here, man.

 

C'mon man, open up, it's me DAVE!

[Sexy_Sally]

Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

There is a difference. I think you already know it, so no need to spell it out.

 

Only in semantics, if one has to pay a grounds fee to hunt for a cache makes it commercial, then so does having to pay a fee for a premium membership. As that more then paying a grounds fee makes it an advertisement for geocaching.com.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site,

 

Geocaching.com has the authority to call themselves whatever they want to call themselves. Being that competing sites don't hold a candle to GC.com, I wouldn't say they are off base in calling themselves that.

 

 

You seem to know an awful lot about the sport, history of it and other issues for someone who just joined 2 days ago. I think some Dr Scholls might be in order.

 

What, just because I signed up for my own account two days ago, and have done my research makes my questions less valid? Or makes me fair game to be insulted?

 

Sally

[+Rockin Roddy]

No, just makes you look to be a sock puppet and your motives questionable!

[Sexy_Sally]

Your posting feels more like buckshot... I don't know which topic to respond to.

Perhaps if you add some pics to your profile and gallery, you would resemble a sock puppet less.

 

Because of the fact that I live at a nudist resort 24/7/365 all of my pictures are of my nude. And I will not edit them to fit the textile mentally that is so rampant here.

 

Sally

[+Rockin Roddy]

You've NEVER left the resort?? Ever? No vacations to locations requiring more clothing? No trips to the mall or grocery store? Never had your picture taken while out caching (in clothes)?

[+Knight2000]

Your posting feels more like buckshot... I don't know which topic to respond to.

Perhaps if you add some pics to your profile and gallery, you would resemble a sock puppet less.

 

Because of the fact that I live at a nudist resort 24/7/365 all of my pictures are of my nude. And I will not edit them to fit the textile mentally that is so rampant here.

 

Sally

I dont think everyone wants you to edit them.

[+Sioneva]

I would like to know what kind of textile I am! Can I be denim? I like denim, it can take anything you throw at it. Or maybe silk, because it's expensive and just feels nice to wear. But denim is more practical for a geocacher, so I'll be denim.

 

What textile are you?

[Sexy_Sally]

Looks like someone us bitter about something. How bout telling the rest of the story Sally.

 

I'm "bitter" because I tried to start a thread on a serious topic that is near and dear to me and pretty much all I got for my troubles were snide remarks and insults.

 

Snide remarks and insults from people who obviously do not know the first thing about nudism or social nudity. Because IF they did they wouldn't have made the remarks that they did.

 

Sally

[+flask]

Your posting feels more like buckshot... I don't know which topic to respond to.

Perhaps if you add some pics to your profile and gallery, you would resemble a sock puppet less.

 

Because of the fact that I live at a nudist resort 24/7/365 all of my pictures are of my nude. And I will not edit them to fit the textile mentally that is so rampant here.

 

Sally

 

once again, i rather resent the pejoritive and dismissive use of "textile mentality".

 

although i am not a nudist, i understand and approve of the nudist lifestyle. for my trouble here, i keep being insulted.

 

people who wear clothes are simply not more repressed or less advanced than you are. i know you'd like to claim superiority, but so far you're not giving much evidence.

 

when i go to brunch with someone, i prefer not to have to bring a towel. that's all.

[+Wayfinders]

1. Why does my post say ringbone?

2. I accept your apology.

3. Geocaching.com doesn't care about chinldren

4. <coming soon, I'm sure>

 

FOUND IT!!!

 

4. all of my pictures are of my nude.

[Sexy_Sally]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

Commerical caches are commerical because they advertise something, not because they restrict people from accessing them.

 

Then simply having to to pay a nominal fee to enter a park or resort should not "condemn" a cache as a "commercial" cache. As there are plenty of public parks that either charge a fee or are restricted to residents of a town or county.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

Groundspeak, Inc., and they only set the rules for their own site, not for others.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

As far as I know he never sought to make his own web site. He could seek to do so if he wanted.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

It would depend. If it was violating a local park permit policy or other local rule that could jeopardize everyone's use of the area for caching if it were found, I at the very least would contact the owner and explain the problem. Otherwise, I would probably ignore it.

 

Sally

[+RoyalRed]

Sounds like a ton of whining to me. If you don't like Geocaching.com then why don't you just go hunt seashells by the seashore?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Naw. Trackinabox was more entertaining. He had a point to make, albeit misguided. He was an actual geocacher with find and hides, but could not accept steadfast regulations. No caches in National Park Service Areas. So he committed geocide.

"Sexy_Sally", on the other hand seems to have wanted to cause an uproar. (As someone pointed out, she has no finds nor hides.)

Hello, I live full-time at a nudist resort

might have been a giveaway (and, of course the user name). Good Golly! Most of the posters agreed with a hide in a nudist colony as being acceptable, with proper warnings. The problem being that her nudist resort is not open to the general public.

True, a good deal of the resorts/clubs are "private," but most do allow anyone from the "general public" who is willing to pay the grounds fees, and go through a brief tour, or orientation to visit and enjoy the grounds.

And, that begets the current thread. Sorry. If there's an entry fee for a private facility, (not non-profit), then it does not qualify. This all sems to have been answered in the first thread. What purpose does this thread serve? Other than to attempt to rake more muck?

[+Too Tall John]

Hrm... "Textiles."

 

Your usage of this word reminds me of the usage of the word "retard." The word itself in the original definition isn't a kind of person. "Retard" means slow. "Textile" means fabric. Both seem to be used to describe people in a derogatory form.

 

I'd appreciate it if you'd use "people first" language. It isn't acceptable to call someone a "retard." If someone has a disability, we call them "A person with <type of> disability," stressing the fact that they are a person first and formost, who has a disability.

 

It seems you are trying to make people think you are looking down on people who choose to wear clothing (frankly, I think you are a sock puppet, and I hope all your accounts get shut down) by calling us "textiles." Please use the term "people of textiles." As Flask so aptly pointed out, archaeological evidence seems to point to the fact that all cultures seemed to have clothing for the norm, I'd like to continue calling ourselves "people with common sense." Can we call you a "person with a textile deficiency?"

[+Too Tall John]

...I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?...

If a cache were placed somewhere that was against the guidelines, I wouldn't be in that place hunting a cache now, would I? Ask a legit question.

[+gh patriot]

Several of you have mentioned that so called "commercial" caches aren't allowed because not "everyone" has access to them. Then way are some caches listed as "Premium Members" only? Doesn't that make those caches "commercial" because again not everyone has access to them.

 

I would also like to ask who has given geocaching.com the authority to call itself the official geocaching web site, and to set the "rules" for everyone who wishes to go geocaching? Because as I understand things geocaching.com isn't the only fish in the sea.

 

I mean as I understand the history of caching, it was started by one man celebrating the removal of the SA allowing us to play our litte game. And that it's birth as it was, was in the newsgroups. And that the "inventor" has become disillusioned and has pretty much left the game.

 

And I would like to thank those who didn't heed the warnings, resulting in my original thread being closed.

 

I would also like to ask that if you're out caching and find a cache from another web site, and it for whatever reason violates the rules here what would you do? Would you leave it alone, or would you remove it?

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

Sally

 

 

Uhhhhhh... Leave us alone.

[+flask]

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

Sally

 

so get it approved elsewhere. why should you care which listing service you use?

[+conradv]

Hrm... "Textiles."

 

Your usage of this word reminds me of the usage of the word "retard." The word itself in the original definition isn't a kind of person. "Retard" means slow. "Textile" means fabric. Both seem to be used to describe people in a derogatory form.

 

I'd appreciate it if you'd use "people first" language. It isn't acceptable to call someone a "retard." If someone has a disability, we call them "A person with <type of> disability," stressing the fact that they are a person first and formost, who has a disability.

 

It seems you are trying to make people think you are looking down on people who choose to wear clothing (frankly, I think you are a sock puppet, and I hope all your accounts get shut down) by calling us "textiles." Please use the term "people of textiles." As Flask so aptly pointed out, archaeological evidence seems to point to the fact that all cultures seemed to have clothing for the norm, I'd like to continue calling ourselves "people with common sense." Can we call you a "person with a textile deficiency?"

 

You beat me to it.

 

She comes across with a bigoted attitude with her use of "textiles"....

[Pto]

 

If you'd remove it, why would you remove it? As I've said this isn't the only site dedicated to the game of geocaching, and just because a cache might not be approved here doesn't mean it wouldn't be approved elsewhere

 

Sally

 

so get it approved elsewhere. why should you care which listing service you use?

 

So, would you remove it? That was the part I saw as the real question here.

 

There is no competition for cache listing in my area, so Ive never run into this problem-

 

Me, no I wouldnt remove it - Id sign it and probably log it, if I was already "on" the site the hider was. If it was blatantly "bad' for the game, Id probably pull it, and email the hider to decrease the bad press from that happening. Otherwise a note to the hider, leaving it in place expressing my concerns.