+Alice Band Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I have been asked to bring this to the attention of other cachers (being a forum lurker) as its rather odd and I imagine the cacher in question reads this forum. Some caches have started to appear up here which are placed by a cacher pretending to be known local cachers. He/she/them call themselves The Impressionists and list the cache as placed by a named local cacher. The whole thing certainly has roused the curiousity of a couple of Nottingham-based cachers who don't want to be next, and also worry that if the clone cache is a bad one they will soon get a reputation for poor caches (we cachers are a gossipy lot ) People are not really quite sure what to make of them and no one knows who is maintaining them, if at all. I had a look at their homepage which claims to place these to celebrate their favourite caches. Here is an example of how one cacher feels about it. So far, there are only two but more may appear over time. Normally if a great cache inspires us we tend to place our own and credit the cacher in the description so this is rather different We just want to say, if you are the one doing this please contact the cachers concerned first. You were discussed at a recent event I went to and we are baffled why you just cant place it in your own name as there are no problems with the site or the cache and they would be more than happy to accommodate yourself if its part of a planned event or game - but please drop them a line first. Any secrecy as part of a planned game will be kept. For me the jury is still out as to how I feel about a clone cache in my name, and though imitation is the best form of flattery I would prefer it if they dropped me a line first just incase I had something planned! Thank you, rant and whine over. We now return to our normal service.... Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Now that's just given me a great idea... Quote Link to comment
+Alice Band Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 Now that's just given me a great idea... Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Now that's just given me a great idea... 'Alice Banned' caches coming to an area near you soon Quote Link to comment
+jerryo Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Personally I think it's appalling and I'd demand they stopped it and archived the caches. I think el reviewer should have a word. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Be assured that these caches have been published after discussion with the reviewers and the supposed "owners" know about them and support them. Maintenance plans have been discussed with the reviewers and all new caches will only be created with the knowledge of the "owners". Yes there was a slight hiccup at the start but everyone involved is happy now with the way they've been done. Normally sock puppet caches are not allowed but in this case an exception has been made. Quote Link to comment
+jerryo Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Very fast response , but the link to "The real O2J"'s post in Alice Band's OP implies to me that O2J aren't over-chuffed about it. That they have edited the log twice and still sound miffed is a giveaway. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Yes there was a slight hiccup at the start the link to "The real O2J"'s post in Alice Band's OP implies to me that O2J aren't over-chuffed about it. That they have edited the log twice and still sound miffed is a giveaway. Hence my reference to a hiccup. Hopefully the "owner" will reply here himself but suffice it to say that I'm happy with what has been said in private e-mails to me. Quote Link to comment
+O2J Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Yes there was a slight hiccup at the start the link to "The real O2J"'s post in Alice Band's OP implies to me that O2J aren't over-chuffed about it. That they have edited the log twice and still sound miffed is a giveaway. Hence my reference to a hiccup. Hopefully the "owner" will reply here himself but suffice it to say that I'm happy with what has been said in private e-mails to me. Hello all, yes, i was rather miffed about it and as i haven't actually been contacted by the mystery cacher yet with an apology (too much to ask?) i am still a little. Agree totally with the original post about doing a cache in you own name (or another cachers...WITH THEIR PERMISSION....(the important bit!) if you wish to demonstrate your approval of another cachers caches. If you want to play silly bu993rs and hide behind a sock puppet (for what is in essence a good idea...) i am sure most cachers would still approve to allow their name to be used...if they were asked...and you were up front about it. At the end of the day we all play the game in our own way, but that shouldn't come at the expense of courtesy to other players... Lactodorum has kindly intervened on this occasion and got the user to adjust the page to make it a little clearer as to who's it is and who is maintaining it. Although what is rather annoying is that rather than contact me about my concerns or to ask for retrospective permission, discuss it etc, The Impressionists have just decided how they want to do it (Oh! to Jay) and done it. Yes it complies with Geocaching guidelines now, but they still seem to be rather silent about the whole thing... Add to this the fact that the brief emails i have received from them have the full name of a certain Dragonlady on them...most strange...make of that what you will (two options!). Anyway, back to caching normality... John O2J (The real ones!) Quote Link to comment
+Matrix Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 OK I may be missing something here but are you suggesting that if someone called Oh for Dee sets rubbish caches then people will think that someone called O4D is to blame ? Or are we as cachers really that unintelligent not to spot the difference ? Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I believe the new name replaced a much less clear (i.e. identical, e.g. O4D on the page) version. Anyone can cyber-squat by changing the shown name on a cache to whatever they like, including the name of another cacher. Quote Link to comment
+Matrix Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I believe the new name replaced a much less clear (i.e. identical, e.g. O4D on the page) version. Anyone can cyber-squat by changing the shown name on a cache to whatever they like, including the name of another cacher. Aha I see now Thanks Paul . Quote Link to comment
+O2J Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Well, i'm now happy with it, thanks for setting the cache, i look forward to doing it! Cheers John Quote Link to comment
+NinjaPete Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Just curious about this one but the link in the original post comes up with this You cannot read archived log entries. Quote Link to comment
+Bill D (wwh) Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 NinjaPete wrote: Just curious about this one but the link in the original post comes up with this You cannot read archived log entries. It could be that the log has been deleted - I think deleted logs remain in the system as "archived". Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.