Cache Owner Powers

[+OzGuff]

I recently found two caches that were then re-located to new spots about half a mile away a day or so later. Same GCID, same container, different coordinates. The cache owner has previously, though not always, offered a second find on re-located caches to those who found it in the original spot and then find it in the new spot. In fact the note on the re-enable post invited everyone to enjoy the cache in its new spot.

 

So I drove out there the next day and re-found the two caches. The day after that I emailed the cache owner and asked if a second find would be offered to the two cachers who found the two caches in their original spots. About seven hours later I was logging my finds from the previous day and did log a second find on both of the caches, having not yet received a reply from the cache owner. (Though I did add to my find log that if permission was not given for the second find for the only two cachers who had found them as originally placed then I would change my find log to a note.) [My apologies for that last sentence; not the most fluently phrased.]

 

Not long after that I received a reply from the cache owner, the gist of which was that they had been leaning towards offering the second find to the two cachers, but on receipt of my find logs had decided, due to my impatience -- not waiting for a reply from the cache owner -- that while the other finder COULD claim a second find (if they wished) that I COULD NOT. [OK, so all could have been avoided had I waited an additional hour or two, but I believe that that is irrelevant.]

 

I'm sure that some of you are saying, "Well, there must be more to this story...", and you would be right. But there just isn't time to go into the situation fully. Suffice it to say that the cache owner (and spouse) and I do not get along all that well, but they have a much more cordial relationship with the cacher who was allowed the option of the second find.

 

I am willing to post links to the caches in question, but would like to see what the reaction is first from folks here in the forums. Is the cache owner within their rights to single out who can or cannot log a find on a cache? Does this meet the letter of the guidelines but not the spirit? Could I get a cache listed that specifically listed those cachers allowed to log a find and those specifically prohibited from logging a find? Is the cache owner all powerful when it comes to logs on their caches?

 

Thanks for your support.

[+UncleJimbo]

snip...

 

I'm sure that some of you are saying, "Well, there must be more to this story...", and you would be right. But there just isn't time to go into the situation fully. Suffice it to say that the cache owner (and spouse) and I do not get along all that well, but they have a much more cordial relationship with the cacher who was allowed the option of the second find.

 

I am willing to post links to the caches in question, but would like to see what the reaction is first from folks here in the forums. Is the cache owner within their rights to single out who can or cannot log a find on a cache? Does this meet the letter of the guidelines but not the spirit? Could I get a cache listed that specifically listed those cachers allowed to log a find and those specifically prohibited from logging a find? Is the cache owner all powerful when it comes to logs on their caches?

 

Thanks for your support.

Everything I have read in these forums says that cache owners have absolute power. I don't think it is right, but that is the way it is.

 

I have to wonder why you would even bother going after this second placement so soon, knowing your "history" with the cache owners? Aren't there other caches in your area to spend your time on?

 

Cheers

[+Moose Mob]

1) Cache owners have that authority. Right or wrong is not the question.

 

2) If they are moving the cache and allowing "re-find", then it should have been archived and resubmitted a new cache at a new location. This is because the cache would assume a different "feel"

 

3) By admitting to logging a cache more than once, you are openning yourself to foplks who stronh=gly oppose more than one log per GC####. I hope they behave.

[+Prime Suspect]

While the cache owner can set the rules, they should have noted their policy on the cache page when they updated the coordinates.

[+briansnat]

Moving them a half mile, they should have been new caches. That is the mistake

[+Rockin Roddy]

Sounds like you're harboring ill feelings here and wanted to vent?

 

The owner can do as they please, if it bothers you, just ignore their hides and live your life w/o the angst!! Truly, sounds like you needed more patience.

[+OzGuff]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

If it had been a genuine "find", then you would have cause for annoyance if your genuine log had been deleted out of spite. But it seems to have done you a favour by discouraging a duplicate find: the other party has been tempted into logging the same cache twice, which is never good.

 

The cache owner used his "powers" correctly in your case and your conscience can remain clear. Now move on!

[+sbell111]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

I prefer when people act consistently. That being said, I don't think that it's realistic to take the animosity between you and the cache owner completely out of the equation.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

Putting aside the fact that the cache owner should have created a new GC number, I would say that a cache owner should have the ability to consistently apply their own rules to their caches, but should not have the ability to arbitrarily apply those rules to some cachers and not to others.

[+c&s 143]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

Putting aside the fact that the cache owner should have created a new GC number, I would say that a cache owner should have the ability to consistently apply their own rules to their caches, but should not have the ability to arbitrarily apply those rules to some cachers and not to others.

 

I tend to agree with Cedar Grove Seekers on all points. To me if a cache is moved more than a few feet, it should be a new GC.

 

Also, a cache owner should be consistant with his/her rules. I feel that the owner was out of line in disallowing you but allowing someone else. Regardless of how the owner and finder feel about each other, the owner should be consistant. Either allow both to claim the new find or disallow both.

 

Good luck getting it resolved.

 

Craig

C&S 143

[+Walts Hunting]

What was the cache GC number

[+Stargazer22]

The cache owner has the right to allow or disallow logs as they see fit.

I agree with others that if he moved the caches that far, he really should have made them a new GC number, which would have avoided this situation entirely.

 

I would reccommend more patience with cachers responding to you. I have had cache owners take up to a week to get back to me. For many, geocaching is not the central focus of their life and it may take a few days for them to get the time to respond. Maybe they might even want to think over their decision for a day or two before they act.

 

Sometimes patience is rewarded and being antsy is not. Yesterday at work I had someone leave me a voice mail, then literally one mintute later they sent me an email, then two minutes later leave another voicemail saying "since you didn't respond to my voicemail or email, I had to call you again".

They went right to the bottom of my stack of things to do.

[+OzGuff]

What was the cache GC number

I said that I would supply links to the caches, but once I do this becomes more about me versus them. (Which at some level it sort of is...) Rather than it devolving into pure mud-slinging I would like to hear opinions on a theoretical level.

[+sbell111]

Without knowing the nature of the animosity, I'm not comfortable dumping all of the blame on the cache owner (and I really don't care to know what the animosity was about).

Edited February 6, 2008 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

Ignore the personal animus between the cache finder and I. What do folks think about a cache owner using their "powers" to disallow a find that would be allowed for another cacher?

Putting aside the fact that the cache owner should have created a new GC number, I would say that a cache owner should have the ability to consistently apply their own rules to their caches, but should not have the ability to arbitrarily apply those rules to some cachers and not to others.

 

It does sound petty, but if people adhered to the 1 cache, 1 found it, then they wouldn't run into things like this.

[+KJcachers]

The cache owner has the right to allow or disallow logs as they see fit.

That being said, why either of you think this 1 cache and log is so important to want to "Lord" over the other is beyond me. I say you both should grow up and move on. I also agree that you should just ignore this persons caches to avoid any future "issues" with the owner.

[+sbell111]

I agree. This is a local issue that should be handled privately.

[+The Jester]

To take this example to it's logical conclusion, then if the hider decides that the OP can't post a find on any of his caches that's fine?

 

The cache owner has the right to allow or disallow logs as they see fit.

So it's OK for me to decide that CacherX can't log anything on my caches?

[+KJcachers]

yes, but I would guess that wouldn't make you the most popular cache owner and would probably end up on most ignore lists and have lonely caches out there doing nothing but taking up space.

Edited February 6, 2008 by KJcachers

[+StarBrand]

Petty personal politics and feelings look even worse when applied to the caching world.

 

My opinion is a lot went wrong in this situation but ultimately there isn't anything to do about it, no one to contact, no optional recourse. Should have been new GC numbers for a big move like that. Just go out and find somebody else's caches.

[+JohnnyVegas]

It is the same GC number so it is the same cache.

If it was my cache I would have listed it as a new cache.

But that call is the cache owners to make. There may have been a reason that required the cache be moved that was beyond the control of the cache owner.

Not knowing the cache's in question those of us reading this thread do not know the reason for the move.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I'm sure that some of you are saying, "Well, there must be more to this story...", and you would be right. But there just isn't time to go into the situation fully. Suffice it to say that the cache owner (and spouse) and I do not get along all that well, but they have a much more cordial relationship with the cacher who was allowed the option of the second find....

 

There you go. Don't expect the same courtesy extended to others that are higher up on the list. While they should treat everone fairly they do have this power and since they choose to use it this way keep it in mind. Most owners are ok. Some few it's best to avoid their caches and avoid the angst.

 

Chalk it up to reality and adjust your caching to maximize your fun.

[+9Key]

Sort of off topic, but I'm wondering how they were able to move the caches a half mile. I'm pretty sure my local reviewer would have nixed that idea and suggested a new GC number.

[+nikcap]

I recently found two caches that were then re-located to new spots about half a mile away a day or so later. Same GCID, same container, different coordinates. The cache owner has previously, though not always, offered a second find on re-located caches to those who found it in the original spot and then find it in the new spot. In fact the note on the re-enable post invited everyone to enjoy the cache in its new spot.

...

 

What exactly is the CO's criteria for allowing a second find on that caches in question?

[+OzGuff]

Sort of off topic, but I'm wondering how they were able to move the caches a half mile. I'm pretty sure my local reviewer would have nixed that idea and suggested a new GC number.

I can't address that as I am not the local reviewer, but it sure appears that a new GCID would have reduced the amount of angst this situation has produced.

 

What exactly is the CO's criteria for allowing a second find on that caches in question?

Based on the large distances that the caches were moved -- 0.36 miles and 0.66 miles -- it was essentially a new cache. On previous occasions where this same cache owner has moved caches relatively long distances but kept the GCID the same they have usually offered a double-dip opportunity.

[+Shop99er]

If a cache is moved more than a few feet, the owner is supposed to archive the old one, and submit the new one.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If a cache gets muggled moving it just a few feet may not be enough. When I have had cache of mine get muggled I have moved them a least 50 feet to keep the same muggle from finding it.

One cache I moved about 200 feet. I think there is a limit to how far a cachers moves a cache. I am not sure but I think if the coordinates are changed too much the change gets blocked.

 

It would be nice to know the entire story re. the cache in question.

 

A reviewer has a lot of work to do approving new caches, by moving a cache a short distance means less work for the reviewer.

[+baloo&bd]

I said that I would supply links to the caches, but once I do this becomes more about me versus them. (Which at some level it sort of is...) Rather than it devolving into pure mud-slinging I would like to hear opinions on a theoretical level.

 

Theoretically, theoretical examples usually serve to cover the true details that would paint those posing the question in a bad light. The nature of your OP was "me versus them". No "devolving" required.

 

Absent any real details, based on what has been said the owner was well within their rights to do what they did. No harm, no foul.

Edited February 6, 2008 by baloo&bd

[nobby.nobbs]

Please don't be offended but life is short, is this really worth any stress?

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Please don't be offended but life is short, is this really worth any stress?

 

Nope, it isn't. You have your memory of what you found, nothing else truly matters.

[+PhxChem]

but it sure appears that a new GCID would have reduced the amount of angst this situation has produced.

 

That, and waiting for a reply to your email.

[+Kit Fox]

Based on the large distances that the caches were moved -- 0.36 miles and 0.66 miles -- it was essentially a new cache. On previous occasions where this same cache owner has moved caches relatively long distances but kept the GCID the same they have usually offered a double-dip opportunity.

 

 

If you already found the cache once before, how on earth did you know the cache was moved. Is "double dipping" common in your area, and is there a group of locals that share the "double dipping" caches?

 

If it were me, I would be plenty happy with my first and only find on the cache.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+fauxSteve]

I don't know the whole story and I honestly don't care. I do think, however, that if the cache moved enough for people to even think a second log might even be warranted it should have been a new cache.

 

I also recognize the tendency give absolute authority of cache owners. Given that, most cache owners who actually apply such powers should also be prepared for the villagers to make some noise...

 

(Now that I think about it, this picture applies to just about every forum thread here!)

[+OzGuff]

If you already found the cache once before, how on earth did you know the cache was moved. Is "double dipping" common in your area, and is there a group of locals that share the "double dipping" caches?

 

If it were me, I would be plenty happy with my first and only find on the cache.

The cache owners have historically tried to keep older GCIDs "alive". If they relocate a cache a decent distance or even replace a missing container with a different style cache they have often offered a two-fer. I have an Instant Notification for caches that are re-enabled, so knew about these caches being re-located, one 0.36 miles and the other 0.66 miles. The re-enable posts said, "We hope everyone enjoys finding the cache in its new location. Enjoy!" so I headed out to find them.

 

But the issue is NOT finding the same cache twice. (Forum posters may choose to comment on this facet of the situation but that is NOT the issue here.) And the issue is NOT that a new GCID should have been requested given the long distance the caches was moved. (Forum posters may choose to comment on this facet of the situation but that is NOT the issue here.) The issue is whether or not a cache owner can arbitrarily and capriciously apply different rules to different cachers. Given that two cachers have the ability to find a particular cache, is it right that one cacher be allowed to log a find on a cache while another is not?

[+sbell111]

The issue is whether or not a cache owner can arbitrarily and capriciously apply different rules to different cachers. Given that two cachers have the ability to find a particular cache, is it right that one cacher be allowed to log a find on a cache while another is not?

The cache owner certainly has the authority to do so.

 

I'm not surprised that you aren't ignoring this person's caches given your problems with one another, but I am somewhat amazed that you went ahead and tried to get a second find on it before it was absolutely obvious that he was going to allow them on this cache. You should have either waited for the other finder to 'double dip' or for a response to your email. Instead, you acted presumptuously and got slapped down.

 

Of course, the real issue is the animosity between you and the other cacher. You need to work that out.

Edited February 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+geomann1]

Cache owner's can pretty much do what ever they want. If one is a jerk, just ignore his/her caches. There are over 500,000 caches I believe out there, so ignoring they very few problem owners is no big deal.

[+OzGuff]

I'm not surprised that you aren't ignoring this person's caches given your problems with one another, but I am somewhat amazed that you went ahead and tried to get a second find on it before it was absolutely obvious that he was going to allow them on this cache. You should have either waited for the other finder to 'double dip' or for a response to your email. Instead, you acted presumptuously and got slapped down.

 

Of course, the real issue is the animosity between you and the other cacher. You need to work that out.

 

I may have presumed and/or assumed, but given the open invitation for "everyone" to enjoy the caches at the new locations (0.36 and 0.66 miles away from the original spots) I made the return journey and found them. Again. And was "punished" for my impatience. Or maybe just because they don't like me. Who knows. Or cares. But the other cacher who found the caches before they were moved has been specifically invited to find them and log them again.

 

And with regard to animosity and working it out -- it isn't going to happen. You should see some of the venomous bile I have been subjected to via email.

 

How about a hypothetical situation then: I just placed a new cache and am allowing fauxSteve, Renegade Knight, Cedar Grove Seekers, and The Jester the option of finding it and logging it online, but sbell111, Kit Fox, Rockin Roddy, and baloo&bd are expressly prohibited from logging it online. No reason is given for the "rules". Anyone have a problem with this hypothetical situation?

 

I understand that a cache owner can require you to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log the find, but shouldn't then ALL cachers have to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log a find? Not just a subset of all cachers? Shouldn't the rules be applied to all cachers uniformly?

[+baloo&bd]

"We hope everyone enjoys finding the cache in its new location. Enjoy!"

 

If this is the line you feel was an invitation to allow you a smiley for going back and finding it again, you were mistaken.

 

This appears to be nothing more than someone with an axe to grind doing it in the forums.

[+OzGuff]

"We hope everyone enjoys finding the cache in its new location. Enjoy!"

 

If this is the line you feel was an invitation to allow you a smiley for going back and finding it again, you were mistaken.

 

This appears to be nothing more than someone with an axe to grind doing it in the forums.

I may have been mistaken but I'm not sure you can possibly be aware of what the cache owner's intentions were either.

 

Do I have an axe to grind? Possibly, even probably. But I chose to grind it here, and not in my own backyard where the rest of the locals would undoubtedly know the cache owner. [The cache pages in question have already spawned considerable back and forth between the cache owner and other local cachers. I have NOT participated in that discussion.] The interesting thing is that -- as with most issues on these forums -- opinions are spread. And this is NOT a bad thing! Folks from all around the caching community get to throw in their two and three cents worth, and though we may rarely reach a consensus, the discussion itself is useful.

 

Let me explain: I was not expecting a tidal wave of support for my "side" of the debate but thought a few folks would see it my way, and I was also expecting a decent amount of "The cache owner rules!" comments. This tends to mean that the "truth" -- if there is any here -- lies somewhere in the middle. (I totally did NOT expect so many "The cache was moved too far and should have had a new GCID" comments, and will keep this in mind the next time I am thinking about relocating a cache but keeping the same GCID!) (See -- you CAN teach an old dog new tricks!)

 

I continue to believe that mature adults -- and there are a few here who dwell in the forums -- can have a spirited debate, and then agree to disagree. Thanks to all for their responses!

[+cache_test_dummies]

How about a hypothetical situation then: I just placed a new cache and am allowing fauxSteve, Renegade Knight, Cedar Grove Seekers, and The Jester the option of finding it and logging it online, but sbell111, Kit Fox, Rockin Roddy, and baloo&bd are expressly prohibited from logging it online. No reason is given for the "rules". Anyone have a problem with this hypothetical situation?

By 'expressly' I assume you mean presented this way on the cache page. I would think that your hypothetical cache would be viewed as having an agenda, and would be subject to additional reviewer scrutiny. Probably wouldn't get listed in that form.

 

However, I can't judge how closely this hypothetical situation actually represents the situation you presented in the OP.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm not surprised that you aren't ignoring this person's caches given your problems with one another, but I am somewhat amazed that you went ahead and tried to get a second find on it before it was absolutely obvious that he was going to allow them on this cache. You should have either waited for the other finder to 'double dip' or for a response to your email. Instead, you acted presumptuously and got slapped down.

 

Of course, the real issue is the animosity between you and the other cacher. You need to work that out.

 

I may have presumed and/or assumed, but given the open invitation for "everyone" to enjoy the caches at the new locations (0.36 and 0.66 miles away from the original spots) I made the return journey and found them. Again. And was "punished" for my impatience. Or maybe just because they don't like me. Who knows. Or cares. But the other cacher who found the caches before they were moved has been specifically invited to find them and log them again.

 

And with regard to animosity and working it out -- it isn't going to happen. You should see some of the venomous bile I have been subjected to via email.

 

How about a hypothetical situation then: I just placed a new cache and am allowing fauxSteve, Renegade Knight, Cedar Grove Seekers, and The Jester the option of finding it and logging it online, but sbell111, Kit Fox, Rockin Roddy, and baloo&bd are expressly prohibited from logging it online. No reason is given for the "rules". Anyone have a problem with this hypothetical situation?

 

I understand that a cache owner can require you to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log the find, but shouldn't then ALL cachers have to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log a find? Not just a subset of all cachers? Shouldn't the rules be applied to all cachers uniformly?

 

If you truly believed this to be the case, why did you even feel compeled to send a message ASKING for permission?

 

And to answer the last part...if someone hid a cache and made it so I couldn't log a find, I'd ignore ALL of their caches and move on! I might even go out to the cache, find it and post a nice note in the cache itself, but I wouldn't worry that I couldn't get the smiley.

 

The problem I see, you are having a fight with someone and you likely knew this would happen when you went to make the second find. Also, KNOWING of your problem with this cacher, you should have waited for a reply (since you did decide to go after it). You knew in advance that this likely would be a problem, so you submitted yourself to this abuse.

 

My advice is still the same...move on and live your life angst-free from this cacher. Hey, you want to get back at them, disallow THEIR find on amy of your hides (but be prepared for the fall-out!).

Edited February 7, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

I'm not surprised that you aren't ignoring this person's caches given your problems with one another, but I am somewhat amazed that you went ahead and tried to get a second find on it before it was absolutely obvious that he was going to allow them on this cache. You should have either waited for the other finder to 'double dip' or for a response to your email. Instead, you acted presumptuously and got slapped down.

 

Of course, the real issue is the animosity between you and the other cacher. You need to work that out.

 

I may have presumed and/or assumed, but given the open invitation for "everyone" to enjoy the caches at the new locations (0.36 and 0.66 miles away from the original spots) I made the return journey and found them. Again. And was "punished" for my impatience. Or maybe just because they don't like me. Who knows. Or cares. But the other cacher who found the caches before they were moved has been specifically invited to find them and log them again.

 

And with regard to animosity and working it out -- it isn't going to happen. You should see some of the venomous bile I have been subjected to via email.

 

How about a hypothetical situation then: I just placed a new cache and am allowing fauxSteve, Renegade Knight, Cedar Grove Seekers, and The Jester the option of finding it and logging it online, but sbell111, Kit Fox, Rockin Roddy, and baloo&bd are expressly prohibited from logging it online. No reason is given for the "rules". Anyone have a problem with this hypothetical situation?

 

I understand that a cache owner can require you to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log the find, but shouldn't then ALL cachers have to dress up in a tutu and post a photo to the cache page in order to log a find? Not just a subset of all cachers? Shouldn't the rules be applied to all cachers uniformly?

I agree with Rockin Roddy.

 

 

I feel so dirty.

[+Mudfrog]

"We hope everyone enjoys finding the cache in its new location. Enjoy!"

 

If this is the line you feel was an invitation to allow you a smiley for going back and finding it again, you were mistaken.

 

This appears to be nothing more than someone with an axe to grind doing it in the forums.

I don't know, this can be taken either way if you ask me (i know, nobody asked me ). You'll note that it says "everyone" so this makes it sound to me like the cache owner wants everyone to find it, even previous finders. On top of that, the cache owner then places the invite for one of the previous finders to log it again. Going just on the facts presented so far, the animosity between the two cachers seems to be what caused the problem here.

 

Answers for the OP....

Is it right to pick who can or cannot log a cache, NOPE.

Does the cache owner have the authority to do this under current guidelines, YEP.

 

OT, for the OP. You mentioned that the cache owner has moved caches before and the way you stated it, makes it sound like he/she has done this more than a few times. I think i also read where you stated this was to keep the GC# alive. Do you know why? My guess is that the cache owner is like those who don't want to log DNFs because they think it makes them somehow look bad when they didn't find the cache. On the same token, i guess an archival must make them feel like they've a failed as well, so to keep from feeling bad, they move the cache and then somehow talk the reviewer into letting them keep the old number. Speculating cause i'm curious!

Edited February 7, 2008 by Mudfrog

[+Kit Fox]

 

OT, the OP mentioned that the cache owner has moved caches before and the way you stated it, makes it sound like he/she has done this more than a few times. I think i also read where you stated this was to keep the GC# alive. Do you know why? My guess is that the cache owner is like those who don't want to log DNFs because they think it makes them somehow look bad when they didn't find the cache. On the same token, i guess an archival must make them feel like they've a failed as well, so to keep from feeling bad, they move the cache and then somehow talk the reviewer into letting them keep the old number. Just speculation here folks!

 

It appears to be an ongoing game they play in their area. I looked up Ozzguff's stats on INATN and I came up with this.

 

Total: 3405 finds on 3352 unique caches (List Multiple Finds)

 

When you look at the multiple finds, you'll see other cachers doing the same thing.

 

Look at GCV7PE Maxcacher the reviewer posted a simple "corrected coordinates" log on April 6th 06, then cachers refound the cache. It looks like this cache was a pocket cache, a real cache, then a moved to a new location cache It sure seems like yet another "new numbers game" being played.

 

To me the entire issue is based on selfishness by the OP, and petty behavior from the cache owner.

 

Cache Number of Finds

 

NORTH CAROLINA SCAVENGER HUNT: Mountain Edition 3

My favorite reading place. 2

KZoo 2

Fighting Creek 2

Sycamore Scramble 2

In the Woods at Lake Julian 2

Elkmont Virtual Cache 2

Outdoor Advertising? 2

Choosy Mothers Choose Jif 2 2

Fabulous, Fantastic Fire Tower Friday 2

Micro Splash 3 2

Wet Feet 2

RameeLee Was Here...Kinda 2

You Will See Hooper Meet Cane 2

Born to Cache? DO NOT FIND THIS CACHE! 2

Ellie's Small Stuff II 2

Out of Bounds on Hole 7 2

OM #07 -- Put Me In Coach! 10

Dolly Parton 2

Emerts Cove CB 2

Above Ground 2

Creek Birch 2

Gateway Falls 2

A Covered Spring 2

Guard Post by the River 2

What Would ET Do? 2

Tucked Away 2

#200 2

Stones of Bearwallow 2

Flat Rock Nature Center 2

Training Grounds 2

Above the Flood Level 2

Welcome to Townsend 2

Backtrack 2

CHBs in Jackson County 2

Discover Knoxville #1: Blue Plate Special 2

Sky King #1 - New location 4/20/06 2

Wayward Traveler Map and TB Cache 2

Home Run Hill 2

Hiker's Rest 2

LTL -Exit 407- Outdoor Stop 2

Rat Scooting 2

Glen's Footbridge 2

Glen's Woods 2

Edited February 7, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+baloo&bd]

I totally did NOT expect so many "The cache was moved too far and should have had a new GCID" comments, and will keep this in mind the next time I am thinking about relocating a cache but keeping the same GCID!

 

The responses you are seeing are being polite. In reality it appears the cache was not moved the distance you indicate due to the fact that 1. the system would not allow it and 2. a reviewer would have to be involved. In all likely hood this was moved a very short distance to move it out of harms way.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

If memory serves me right, this is not the first clash you've had with a fellow cacher that has came to light in the forums. Why do you find yourself in these little conflicts?

 

I just don't get into minor issues with other cachers. But if I did have ongoing issues with a cacher, I wouldn't even look for their caches. They would go on ignore status.

 

But why have an ongoing issue with a cacher? Why not send an email to this cacher and say, "Hey, I'm sorry for (insert whatever the problem is here) I feel silly having ANY kind of squabble about caching, so I really would like to put this behind us. Again, I'M sorry for the grief I'VE caused."

 

One week later log the aforementioned cache. Get on with life. Have no more conflicts with cachers.

[+baloo&bd]

On top of that, the cache owner then places the invite for one of the previous finders to log it again. Going just on the facts presented so far, the animosity between the two cachers seems to be what caused the problem here.

 

Answers for the OP....

Is it right to pick who can or cannot log a cache, NOPE.

Does the cache owner have the authority to do this under current guidelines, YEP.

 

Agreed, however the hider neither invited or even allowed anyone to "log it again".

[+OzGuff]

It is amazing that by trying to protect the identify of the other party my motives get called into question. Oh well...

 

I'm not going to supply links to the cache pages in question, but since the cache owner has already posted all of the emails that have been sent hither and yon I will paste them here.

 

Will the two finders of the two caches originally located at XXXXX and now re-located to XXXXX be allowed a second find?

 

Thanks for the caches!

[bTW -- by quoting my own email communication on this public forum I do NOT give up any of my rights granted by section 106 of the US Copyright Act (17 USC section 106), specifically subsection (1).]

 

I logged the caches at 3:24pm and 3:27pm.

 

Why are you always so impatient? I read your first note when I arrived back home today around noon asking if a second find would be permitted on “XXXXX” and “XXXXX.” Well, I guess did not answer your request quickly enough to suit you.

 

What ever happened to simple Caching Etiquette? Why would you not wait until I gave you an answer before dashing all the way down the mountain to XXXXX?

 

The fact is, I had not given any thought one way or the other as to offering a second find for those two caches. But, since you mentioned it (nicely), I then thought, “Oh well, why not? No big deal.” After tending to numerous other details this afternoon, I was just about to post an invitation on the cache pages inviting a re-find by previous finders. So, here I am, finally back at my computer and what do I see? Hmmm….you have already taken it upon yourself to help yourself to the re-finds! Well, since you were so belligerently impatient, and just couldn’t wait a few hours for my reply… XXXXX, for you (and you only), NO, I am NOT allowing you to take a re-find on those two caches. You may either change your log to a note or delete it altogether.

 

BTW, the cacher who was FTF has not requested a re-find for these two caches, but if he does, he is welcome to do so.

 

Regards,

 

XXXXX

I have asked permission of the cache owner to post her emails to public forums, but have not received a reply. But since she herself has posted her own emails to a public forum, the doctrine of implied license applies.

 

So, after reading the above, and ignoring if you can issues such as double finding a cache, the need for new GCIDs, and any personal animosity between the cache owner and I, how do folks feel about the situation?

 

[Heck -- while I was composing the above a whole bunch of posts were made to this thread. Looks like I am in for some interesting reading...]

[+Kit Fox]

On top of that, the cache owner then places the invite for one of the previous finders to log it again. Going just on the facts presented so far, the animosity between the two cachers seems to be what caused the problem here.

 

Answers for the OP....

Is it right to pick who can or cannot log a cache, NOPE.

Does the cache owner have the authority to do this under current guidelines, YEP.

 

Agreed, however the hider neither invited or even allowed anyone to "log it again".

 

OZguff even logged his own cache ten times, because cachers wouldn't allow him to log double finds on their caches. He made specific reference to the caches that he "double dipped" and many specifically say "this cache is not available for mutiple logging.

 

I'll have to add this game to "the new numbers game."

Edited February 7, 2008 by Kit Fox