Cache Owner Powers

[+OzGuff]

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!

I'm not sure why they feel the need to keep old GCIDs when moving caches. Maybe it is an attempt to keep them from artificially inflating their Caches Placed stats. But it definitely makes it harder to weed out "new" caches that are really "old" caches that have been moved and are now open for business again. You would have to ask them...

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

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...]

 

Nothing you've said in this post changes my opinion. Yes, they sound petty, but you have no control over their behavior. The mature way of handling this is either apologize for annoying them and prevent this from being an even bigger problem in the future, or just quit hunting for their caches.

 

If you can put ego to the side, this problem can just go away.

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

Not only artificially inflating numbers (to each their own), but then come to the forum when a cache owner follows the guidelines and deletes bogus logs.

 

Guess it is about the numbers.

[+OzGuff]

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

Wow -- is this an example of a little information being a dangerous thing or what! Most of the double-finds you see above are as a result of participating in the Great Smoky Mtn GeoQuest. This was a two-day event touring around eastern Tennessee finding caches. The caches were not the actual caches listed on GC.com but usually located within feet, and permission had been requested by the event organizers and granted by the cache owners for the participants to log the real caches. If I had already found the actual GC.com cache or found it later I wound up with two finds on the one GCID.

 

Many of the other occurrences of multiple finds are from the cache owner (and spouse) mentioned in the above squabble. They have moved caches and offered an additional find to previous finders. I'm not bothered by any of the finds listed above. They were not pocket caches. Had K.F. taken the time to ask before posting the above... Oh well. I am sure that this will be another case of a Page One headline with a page fifty-two retraction. (Or more likely none at all.)

[+baloo&bd]

Most of the double-finds you see above are as a result of participating in the Great Smoky Mtn GeoQuest. This was a two-day event touring around eastern Tennessee finding caches. The caches were not the actual caches listed on GC.com but usually located within feet, and permission had been requested by the event organizers and granted by the cache owners for the participants to log the real caches. If I had already found the actual GC.com cache or found it later I wound up with two finds on the one GCID.

 

Many of the other occurrences of multiple finds are from the cache owner (and spouse) mentioned in the above squabble. They have moved caches and offered an additional find to previous finders. I'm not bothered by any of the finds listed above. They were not pocket caches. Had K.F. taken the time to ask before posting the above... Oh well. I am sure that this will be another case of a Page One headline with a page fifty-two retraction. (Or more likely none at all.)

 

What is your definition of a pocket cache?

Edited February 7, 2008 by baloo&bd

[+OzGuff]

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.

Unfortunately our history includes some pretty harsh comments made by both parties. Attempting to heal the rift is not likely to work. I find caches. Anyone's caches. I honestly didn't think this -- finding the re-located caches again -- was going to be a big deal. But I'm more bothered by the "rules" being applied differently. Oh well...

[+OzGuff]

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".

Please read post #49 in this thread. The cache owner WILL allow the other previous finder to log it again.

[+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.

Unfortunately our history includes some pretty harsh comments made by both parties. Attempting to heal the rift is not likely to work. I find caches. Anyone's caches. I honestly didn't think this -- finding the re-located caches again -- was going to be a big deal. But I'm more bothered by the "rules" being applied differently. Oh well...

 

I don't understand. The fact that "harsh comments have been made" makes my advice even more appropriate. Apologize for your part. You can't control how they will react, but you CAN take responsibility for your own actions.

 

You've had pretty harsh comments about CACHING?!?! How silly is that? Do your discussions about politics turn into fisticuffs? Do you have any idea how petty this all sounds?

[+baloo&bd]

<snip> and petty behavior from the cache owner.

 

This post is correct with the exception of the above. It appears the owner did not allow any re-finds so was simply following guidelines of deleting bogus logs and should not be faulted for that.

[+baloo&bd]

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

Please read post #49 in this thread. The cache owner WILL allow the other previous finder to log it again.

 

I did, however that is not what was stated on the cache, where the EXPRESSLY prohibited re-finds, and those are the messages sent by the cache owners.

Edited February 7, 2008 by baloo&bd

[+OzGuff]

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.

Update Coordinates NCreviewer updated the coordinates for XXXXX (Traditional Cache)

N 35° XX.XXX W 082° XX.XXX

** Coordinates Changed From **

N 35° XX.XXX W 082° XX.

Distance From Old: 3485.3 feet

Edited at owner's request.

 

Update Coordinates NCreviewer updated the coordinates for XXXXX (Traditional Cache)

N 35° XX.XXX W 082° XX.XXX

** Coordinates Changed From **

N 35° XX.XXX W 082° XX.XXX

Distance From Old: 1878.4 feet

Updating coordinates at owner's request.

 

Do the math. 0.66 miles and 0.36 miles. The coordinates WERE changed with the knowledge and participation of the local reviewer. See the retraction on page fifty-two.

[+OzGuff]

Do you have any idea how petty this all sounds?

Yes I do. But with most forum discussions things soon spiral out of control. Especially as someone -- like me -- tries to justify his actions. I get thoroughly involved in a forum thread I have started, get beaten into an unrecognizable pulp, then retreat to the safety of the non-forum world. My only problem is that I do this all over again at regular intervals. Maybe you CAN'T teach an old dog new tricks...

 

As folks have no doubt gathered, I have a hard time being the bigger person and admitting my mistakes. But caching is still fun. And even the give and take here on the forums is fun. (In a sadistic kind of way.)

[+sbell111]

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".

Please read post #49 in this thread. The cache owner WILL allow the other previous finder to log it again.

By my read of that post, the cache owner didn't offer to allow the other finder to relog the cache. The cache owner told you that she would allow that cacher to relog if she were to ask.

 

Either way, let it go. Obviously, you like this person's caches (so much that you log them over and over). get beyond the bickering and mend the fence. My only other piece of advice is this: If you find that you keep getting into these endless bickering patterns with other cachers, change whatever you are doing that gets you into them. If it starts with conversations at events, you might want to stop going to events. If it starts in local forums, stop participating in local forums. No one ever gets pissed off at the casual cacher that they only have contact with through his/her polite logs and pleasant email replies. (Before you go there, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in the argument that starts the ugliness.)

[+OzGuff]

Folks -- I stand by my finds. Can we keep on track and on topic? This is not a thread to bash me about multiple finds. If folks want to continue berating me -- use the PM button or send me an email. Or open a new thread.

 

As a Moderator mentioned in an early post to this thread:

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. [My emphasis, not Moose Mob's.]

 

So please behave. The topic is cache owner powers: Should they be able to allow some cachers to find a cache while prohibiting others?

 

I apologize for getting off track myself. It is hard to NOT respond when someone baits you.

[+OzGuff]

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".

Please read post #49 in this thread. The cache owner WILL allow the other previous finder to log it again.

By my read of that post, the cache owner didn't offer to allow the other finder to relog the cache. The cache owner told you that she would allow that cacher to relog if she were to ask.

 

Either way, let it go. Obviously, you like this person's caches (so much that you log them over and over). get beyond the bickering and mend the fence. My only other piece of advice is this: If you find that you keep getting into these endless bickering patterns with other cachers, change whatever you are doing that gets you into them. If it starts with conversations at events, you might want to stop going to events. If it starts in local forums, stop participating in local forums. No one ever gets pissed off at the casual cacher that they only have contact with through his/her polite logs and pleasant email replies. (Before you go there, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in the argument that starts the ugliness.)

Even given your read of the referenced post, I asked permission and was denied and if the other finder asks permission he will be allowed. Am I missing something here that makes this make sense?

 

OT -- With regard to your "let it go" paragraph (and the many previous posters to this thread who urged similar things): This is definitely the way to go. But I'm not sure I will be able to follow through with that. Things have been said that really can't be unsaid. Petty -- yes. A pity -- yes. Oh well...

[+baloo&bd]

So please behave. The topic is cache owner powers: Should they be able to allow some cachers to find a cache while prohibiting others?

 

This was answered, both here and on the NCGO threads. However you them proceeded to offer an example of a cache that was moved and the hider offered to let some re-find and others not, and implied (repeatedly) it was a real instance, which is was not.

 

Don't complain when others respond to something you post.

 

With luck, someone will lock this soon since this thread has run it's course.

[+JohnnyVegas]

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

Wow -- is this an example of a little information being a dangerous thing or what! Most of the double-finds you see above are as a result of participating in the Great Smoky Mtn GeoQuest. This was a two-day event touring around eastern Tennessee finding caches. The caches were not the actual caches listed on GC.com but usually located within feet, and permission had been requested by the event organizers and granted by the cache owners for the participants to log the real caches. If I had already found the actual GC.com cache or found it later I wound up with two finds on the one GCID.

 

Many of the other occurrences of multiple finds are from the cache owner (and spouse) mentioned in the above squabble. They have moved caches and offered an additional find to previous finders. I'm not bothered by any of the finds listed above. They were not pocket caches. Had K.F. taken the time to ask before posting the above... Oh well. I am sure that this will be another case of a Page One headline with a page fifty-two retraction. (Or more likely none at all.)

Well I would consider loggin one cache more than one time a bogus log, I do not care what the event organizer allows, hidding caches that are too close together so that cachers can run their number up is BS.

The event organizers are just allowing cachers to skirt the guidlines re. cache placement. Those logs are bogus.

about the only exception I see to looging a cache more than one time is a traveling cache (but those are not longer alowed)

Edited February 7, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+sbell111]

The topic is cache owner powers: Should they be able to allow some cachers to find a cache while prohibiting others?

No. They should not. However, that's not what happened in your example.

 

You are really asking us whether a cache owner should be able to allow some cachers to refind a cache while prohibiting others. The answer to that question is probably 'yes'. For instance, if the cache owner had let you refind stand, it doesn't mean that she would have let someone who initially found it after the move to double log it.

Even given your read of the referenced post, I asked permission and was denied and if the other finder asks permission he will be allowed. Am I missing something here that makes this make sense?

Perhaps she will, perhaps she won't.

OT -- With regard to your "let it go" paragraph (and the many previous posters to this thread who urged similar things): This is definitely the way to go. But I'm not sure I will be able to follow through with that. Things have been said that really can't be unsaid. Petty -- yes. A pity -- yes. Oh well...

If you can't follow through with that, then you are merely setting yourself up for future ugliness.

 

I have been where you are. Many people in this forum are aware that I used to have a pretty ugly relationship with another local cacher. Eventually, we let it go (mostly because he decided to be the bigger person). We each have a great deal of control over whether we are going to get into one of these kerfluffels and whether we are going to remain in locked into one.

[+JohnnyVegas]

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".

Please read post #49 in this thread. The cache owner WILL allow the other previous finder to log it again.

By my read of that post, the cache owner didn't offer to allow the other finder to relog the cache. The cache owner told you that she would allow that cacher to relog if she were to ask.

 

Either way, let it go. Obviously, you like this person's caches (so much that you log them over and over). get beyond the bickering and mend the fence. My only other piece of advice is this: If you find that you keep getting into these endless bickering patterns with other cachers, change whatever you are doing that gets you into them. If it starts with conversations at events, you might want to stop going to events. If it starts in local forums, stop participating in local forums. No one ever gets pissed off at the casual cacher that they only have contact with through his/her polite logs and pleasant email replies. (Before you go there, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in the argument that starts the ugliness.)

Even given your read of the referenced post, I asked permission and was denied and if the other finder asks permission he will be allowed. Am I missing something here that makes this make sense?

 

OT -- With regard to your "let it go" paragraph (and the many previous posters to this thread who urged similar things): This is definitely the way to go. But I'm not sure I will be able to follow through with that. Things have been said that really can't be unsaid. Petty -- yes. A pity -- yes. Oh well...

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

[+OzGuff]

Well I would consider loggin one cache more than one time a bogus log, I do not care what the event organizer allows, hidding caches that are too close together so that cachers can run their number up is BS.

The event organizers are just allowing cachers to skirt the guidlines re. cache placement. Those logs are bogus.

about the only exception I see to looging a cache more than one time is a traveling cache (but those are not longer alowed)

But if we follow the "Cache Owners Rule!" paradigm, doesn't the fact that the cache owners are allowing the subsequent finds make them de facto not bogus finds? You may consider them bogus but if the cache owner places their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the finds, who are we to question the finds?

 

So which is it? Are cache owners all powerful or should there be some constraints on their powers? Someone needs to make up their minds...

 

[should I just give up? ]

[+baloo&bd]

Well I would consider loggin one cache more than one time a bogus log, I do not care what the event organizer allows, hidding caches that are too close together so that cachers can run their number up is BS.

The event organizers are just allowing cachers to skirt the guidlines re. cache placement. Those logs are bogus.

about the only exception I see to looging a cache more than one time is a traveling cache (but those are not longer alowed)

But if we follow the "Cache Owners Rule!" paradigm, doesn't the fact that the cache owners are allowing the subsequent finds make them de facto not bogus finds? You may consider them bogus but if the cache owner places their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the finds, who are we to question the finds?

 

So which is it? Are cache owners all powerful or should there be some constraints on their powers? Someone needs to make up their minds...

 

[should I just give up? ]

 

You seem to be the one that wants it both ways. Have you made up your mind?

[+sbell111]

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

That is not a deal designed to reduce tension. A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

[+sbell111]

Well I would consider loggin one cache more than one time a bogus log, I do not care what the event organizer allows, hidding caches that are too close together so that cachers can run their number up is BS.

The event organizers are just allowing cachers to skirt the guidlines re. cache placement. Those logs are bogus.

about the only exception I see to looging a cache more than one time is a traveling cache (but those are not longer alowed)

But if we follow the "Cache Owners Rule!" paradigm, doesn't the fact that the cache owners are allowing the subsequent finds make them de facto not bogus finds? You may consider them bogus but if the cache owner places their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the finds, who are we to question the finds?

 

So which is it? Are cache owners all powerful or should there be some constraints on their powers? Someone needs to make up their minds...

 

[should I just give up? ]

You're pretty much right, in my mind.

 

A find is an agreement between cacher and cache owner.

 

That being said, you'll find thread after thread of people decrying that you are somehow degrading caching by double logging these caches.

 

Just give up that argument all together and know that what you are doing is accepteable to the owners of those specific caches.

[+JohnnyVegas]

So which is it? Are cache owners all powerful or should there be some constraints on their powers? Someone needs to make up their minds...

 

[should I just give up? ]

Yes the cache owners have the power to delete logs

and no there should not be constraints on their powers.

[+OzGuff]

You seem to be the one that wants it both ways. Have you made up your mind?

 

Point taken. (But there was a certain amount of sarcasm intended in my last post.)

 

OT: I suppose that my own personal caching ethics has developed over the years. Things that I might have done a few years ago I now would not. I have recorded some of my deeds (or misdeeds) and they are part of my caching history. Would I claim a find on a pocket cache at an event cache now? No. Have I in the past? Yes. Does any of this really matter? Not really.

[+OzGuff]

A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

I know that you are right, but it is hard to unring the bell sometimes. (Or to unhear the bell that someone else has rung.)

[+JohnnyVegas]

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

That is not a deal designed to reduce tension. A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

Who said it would reduce tension, and why must it reduce tension?

[+baloo&bd]

A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

I know that you are right, but it is hard to unring the bell sometimes. (Or to unhear the bell that someone else has rung.)

 

nothing to "unring" or "unhear". Simply ignore their caches. Whether or not you decide to make nice is a separate issue.

 

Unless your one of the sponsored cachers that are in this for the money, it's a game. i.e. suppose to be fun.

[+sbell111]

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

That is not a deal designed to reduce tension. A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

Who said it would reduce tension, and why must it reduce tension?

Because, as shown in this thread and others, 'tension' causes more angst than 'no tension'. That angst results in badness that is not limited to merely deleting a find.

[+OzGuff]

Unless your one of the sponsored cachers that are in this for the money, it's a game. i.e. suppose to be fun.

The good news is that I am having fun! Both caching and dabbling in the forums. (Though the body blows are starting to hurt a little. Is that blood in my urine...)

[+JohnnyVegas]

tension makes threads interesting, with no tension most threads would die off after 3 or 4 replies

[+OzGuff]

tension makes threads interesting, with no tension most threads would die off after 3 or 4 replies

LMAO

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

That is not a deal designed to reduce tension. A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

Who said it would reduce tension, and why must it reduce tension?

 

Does this really require an answer?

 

Because having tension over a game is complete immature silliness.

[+OzGuff]

Because having tension over a game is complete immature silliness.

But isn't complete immature silliness sometimes fun?

 

I'm done here! I have enjoyed the discourse and even changed my opinion about someone! Thanks to all for playing! Not sure what the outcome of this particular situation will be, but it is all good!

[+JoGPS]

Because having tension over a game is complete immature silliness.

But isn't complete immature silliness sometimes fun?

 

I'm done here! I have enjoyed the discourse and even changed my opinion about someone! Thanks to all for playing! Not sure what the outcome of this particular situation will be, but it is all good!

 

""""But isn't complete immature silliness sometimes fun?""""

 

yep would have to agree OzGuff

 

Joe

[+hydnsek]

Because having tension over a game is complete immature silliness.

College football, anyone?

 

Sorry, OT....

[+Harry Dolphin]

OT -- With regard to your "let it go" paragraph (and the many previous posters to this thread who urged similar things): This is definitely the way to go. But I'm not sure I will be able to follow through with that. Things have been said that really can't be unsaid. Petty -- yes. A pity -- yes. Oh well...

 

Oh, well. That is one of my operant theories of life. Oh, well. Life is too short, and there are too many caches out there to hunt. If a cache owner irritates me (as this would have), I stop looking for his or her caches. Easy enough. We can still be friends, if we overcome the problem that caused the irritation. But, there are lots of other caches to hunt for. Why beggar the issue? Too bad. So sad. Oh, well.

[+CSpenceFLY]

I didn't read the whole thread. I'm not going to. It's a number. Get over it.

 

I use to get bent out of shape about some of this stuff but realized it was ruining my game. Go find a couple of caches and move on. You wil feel better.

[+Dear Dora]

This thread has certainly provided interesting reading, if nothing else. I wonder if I, as the cache owner, of the two caches in discussion, am allowed to add my two cents?

 

I am amazed at how accurately OzGuff has presented the facts, up to a point.

 

He states that there is animosity between us. This is a fact and is very true.

 

He states that these two caches were only found by himself and another cacher. This is also true.

 

He states that from time to time we have moved caches and allowed previous finders to re-find them again. This is also, a true statement. However, in every instance where we have offered a re-find, it has always been clearly stated on the cache page, "Anyone who has found the cache in its original location is welcome to find it again in its new location." There was NO such statement on either of these two caches which offered a second find, because ONLY two cachers had found them. Oh, and BTW, whenever re-finds were offered, they were for EVERYONE. because they were at OUR INVITATION!

 

He makes this whole issue seem to be about us wanting to prohibit him from a second find on these caches for no other reason than, "We don't like him." Well, that may be true, but it is NOT why he is being denied.

 

What he fails to mention, is that the SOLE reason HE is being denied, is because he took it upon himself as his God-given RIGHT to claim a second find without being invited, with absolutely NOTHING on the cache pages allowing re-finds, and without permission to do so. Period. To add insult to injury, we learned that by the time he "got around" to even ASKING if refinds would be allowed, he had ALREADY found and signed the cache logs. It was already a DONE DEAL! When we received his request for a refind, even with our, "animosity," we considered granting permission to BOTH previous cache finders. Before we were able to answer his email and grant permission, he again, took it upon himself to log the finds on the cache pages. When we learned that the caches had already been found and cache logs already signed, It was THEN that we decided to deny HIM permission to KEEP his already logged second finds.

 

BTW, the OTHER previous cache finder had not even REQUESTED a second cache find, but OzGuff already had them in the bag! In all honesty, we felt it unfair to the OTHER cache finder to pay the penalty earned solely by OzGuff. That, and that ALONE, is the reason HE (and only he) is being denied a second find.

 

In closing, I cannot understand why OzGuff would be so unwilling to provide links to the two caches in question. We invite anyone to take a few minutes to visit both cache pages, and read all the logs, beginning (at the bottom) from the reviewer's "published" log. The entire story of these two caches will unfold, and you can form your own opinions. It really helps to know ALL of the facts before offering an opinion.

 

Here then, are the links to the two caches.

 

In The Woods At Lake Lure (GC17BKC) and Solitude In The Woods (GC18X6F)

 

Read the cache pages, and THEN form your opinions.

 

Dear Dora & Atrus

[+Renegade Knight]

...Read the cache pages, and THEN form your opinions.

 

Reading the OP and your post I find you tell pretty much the same story. You only add your personal reasons why you said "no".

 

It comes down to this based on your post.

You said no because he didn't ask first and instead followed your past practice. For what it's worth, that's SOP for logging virtuals unless the cache says otherwise.

That puts you in a postion of it's ok for some to log twice but not others. If they have to ask first or the answer is no. That should be on your cache page. Else you should treat all exactly the same according to your past practice. The point being the goal is the same cache experience for all. Not variable depending on things that are entirly up to you that cachers could not reasonable know about based on whats on the cache page.

 

That's my advice to you.

 

My advice to OG remains.

 

Now I'm going to get a Nice Hot Chocolate. If I'm lucky my favorite clerk will be on the register. If I'm not the hot chocolate will still be good.

[+cache_test_dummies]

<snip ...>

To add insult to injury, we learned that by the time he "got around" to even ASKING if refinds would be allowed, he had ALREADY found and signed the cache logs. It was already a DONE DEAL!

I may be confused, but (on-line logging issue aside) are you saying that you didn't want the OP to find the caches and sign the paper logs on the rehides without asking first?

 

 

 

 

Oh, and

[+Kit Fox]

Wouldn't this "little problem" disappear if cachers would only find a cache once, like the majority of cachers do? This whole "allowed to re-log the same cache" scheme whiffs of a "nasty stink." I still can't figure out why someone would actually want to sign the same logbook twice (oh wait, it is all about the number of finds ).

Edited February 8, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+Renegade Knight]

Wouldn't this "little problem" disappear if cachers would only find a cache once, like the majority of cachers do? This whole "allowed to re-log the same cache" scheme whiffs of a "nasty stink." I still can't figure out why someone would actually want to sign the same logbook twice (oh wait, it is all about the number of finds ).

 

I agree the issue would go away if the site had a "one find, one waypoint" rule built into the system. I would not go as far as to say that a two finds on a moved cache is any different than one find each on the old cache and the new cache. A moved cache is a new find with a few ways to handle the situation.

[+baloo&bd]

In The Woods At Lake Lure (GC17BKC) and Solitude In The Woods (GC18X6F)

 

Read the cache pages, and THEN form your opinions.

 

Dear Dora & Atrus

 

Looking at both cache, it appears there were two problems her. One, openly allowing someone to "find" something they already found is beyond comprehension. Having said that, and this is not meant as a shot at the reviewer, however this move should never have been allowed. The cache should have been archived, and a new one put in it's place. Add to that YOU made a similar assumption to Ozguff's as to permission to hide at least one of these caches, it does seem a little unfair that latitude you expected from the property owner could not be assumed by, or extended to, a finder.

 

I had defended your position in absence of all facts, Ozguff's self-admitted issues and apparent need to publicly "grind an axe". However now that it has become apparent this was actually a new cache that slipped through the system, I am not so sure this is not one of those rare instances where a new find is warranted. I have never been presented with this (our reviewer is pretty consistent with the guidelines and his application of said) however I may have logged a find as well with no thought to asking permission.

 

Ozguff, don't sit back smiling to smugly. The above only applies if the person and I had no history like you have stated you two do.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

However, in every instance where we have offered a re-find, it has always been clearly stated on the cache page, "Anyone who has found the cache in its original location is welcome to find it again in its new location." There was NO such statement on either of these two caches which offered a second find, because ONLY two cachers had found them. Oh, and BTW, whenever re-finds were offered, they were for EVERYONE. because they were at OUR INVITATION!

Dear Dora,

 

These are meant as honest questions, not facetious comments;

 

When you moved the two caches, did you plan on eventually allowing re-finds even though you did not mention it on your cache pages? And, if not, Why not?, considering this was standard practice for you?

 

 

Edit: spelling error

Edited February 8, 2008 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[+OzGuff]

Ozguff, don't sit back smiling to smugly. The above only applies if the person and I had no history like you have stated you two do.

Me? Sitting back smiling smugly? Nope.

[+The Jester]

I still can't figure out why someone would actually want to sign the same logbook twice

openly allowing someone to "find" something they already found is beyond comprehension

Would you have the same opinions if the the GCID was new? Same box, same logbook, different location, different GCID? There is a hider around here that did that, recycled the same box & logbook in a "new" cache.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I still can't figure out why someone would actually want to sign the same logbook twice

openly allowing someone to "find" something they already found is beyond comprehension

Would you have the same opinions if the the GCID was new? Same box, same logbook, different location, different GCID? There is a hider around here that did that, recycled the same box & logbook in a "new" cache.

In my opinion a cache that has been moved a few thousand feet is really a new cache, but out of principle I might have a hard time logging it twice. I guess I won't know until it happens to me. Not sure that it'll ever happen as our local reviewer wouldn't allow it (thankfully).

[+Dear Dora]

In this note, we will address a few points which have come up in the posts which followed ours. I will reference my comments by note number.

 

#90 - For the record, we have only moved THREE (3) caches. One of them was never found before it was moved, so therefore, no "re-finds" were offered. (Ironicly, it is one of our two caches which pays honor to OzGuff, OzGuff Hides 300 (GCPK07). It was moved about 12 miles. The 'then' reviewer had no issues with moving it.)

 

As to the other two caches we moved, we invited anyone who had already found them in their original location, to re-find them again in the new locations. This invitation was clearly stated on the cache pages. That being said, could it not be argued that our "past practice" would therefore be established to be, that any invitations for re-finds would be clearly posted as part of the cache page?

 

Since there was NO SUCH invitation on either of the two cache pages in this discussion, why would OzGuff/Caching Fool, ASSUME that re-finds would be automatically allowed without being stated as such on the cache page? That is contrary to our so-called, "past practice." (Actually, we never realized that we even HAD a, "past practice!" Thanks for pointing that out to us! )

 

Throughout this thread, there have been a few references to on-line logs being deleted. Again, for the record, we have NOT deleteted ANY of his logs, (origional or second find). Both logs are still on both cache pages.

 

Our post #89 (and the 'then' private email to him posted on the cache pages) clearly states WHY we are denying his second finds (and ONLY his second finds) for the previously stated reasons. We never had any issues whatsoever, with his original finds.

 

#91 Finding the physical cache and signing the paper logs is one thing. We do not have any issues with that. In fact, Atrus does it all the time. He finds caches, signs the paper log, and then doesn't claim a find on the cache page. No big deal. But it's quite another issue when an unauthorized, second find is claimed on the cache page as another legimate find.

 

#93 & 94 A "relocated" (for whatever reason) cache with the same GC number is still the same cache. Therefore, refinds are only allowed with permission from the cache owner.

 

Where in the guidelines, it is even suggested that if a cache is moved more than X feet, it should be archived, and a new cache submitted? It is done all the time. This is a matter of personal preference and has no bearing on the issue of unpermitted double-dipping of a cache find.

 

As for US, ASSUMING that a second cache hide at the origional cache location would be acceptable without the property owner's explicit permission is a point WELL taken. The difference being, as soon as we became aware of an issue, we immediately took appropirate measures to rectify the situation to the satisfaction of the property owners. As soon as OzGuff/Caching Fool became aware of being denied a RE-find, he did absolutely NOTHING to remedy the situation, except to start this thread.

 

#95 Permission for re-finds of these two caches was NOT considered at the time of relocation, as there were only two (2) finders at that time. NOT until OzGuff/Caching Fool asked if they would be allowed, did the matter come up for consideration. Again, I state that the ONLY reason he (and HE alone) was denied a refind was because he took it upon himself to do so without prior permission! And, again, I ask, is it "fair" to deny the other cache finder a re-find, (if requested) based upon the fact that OzGuff/Caching Fool took the unapproved liberty of logging a re-find?

 

Let me elaborate on the statement I made to OzGuff/Caching Fool concerning the other cache finder: "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." This statement does NOT, in fact, grant blanket permission to the FTF finder. The phrase, "BUT IF HE DOES" requires him to make a request for a second find. Also, it is important to note that this statement was never part of the cache page, but was contained in the email returned to OzGuff/Caching Fool in which we denied him permission to KEEP his already logged second finds.

 

We sincerely hope that this note will clarify any remaining questions regarding our decicions.

 

Dear Dora & Atrus

[+JohnnyVegas]

Just make a deal with the cache owner that will not let you log the cache.

Tell her she will no long be allowed to find yours and you in turn will no longer seek her caches.

That is not a deal designed to reduce tension. A better deal would be a simple 'I said stuff that I'm not proud of, you said stuff, let's let it all go and move on.' Perhaps over a basket of wings at an event.

Who said it would reduce tension, and why must it reduce tension?

 

Does this really require an answer?

 

Because having tension over a game is complete immature silliness.

Remarks like that will make me tense:bad:

Edited February 9, 2008 by JohnnyVegas