The OTHER Thanks, But No Thanks! Thread

[+flask]

 

Sorry to drift off topic, but this caught my eye. As you can tell, I don't know squat about T-ball. Is that for real, or is that just snarkiness? Is there really a game where everybody wins? How does that work? Seems like it would decimate the self esteem of anyone who put forth any degree of effort. I can imagine the conversation(s) now:

"It's OK Johnny. I know you worked your little tail off, while Billy wouldn't even swing at the ball, but at least you both win! Isn't that super?"

<fast forward a decade or so>

"But Mom, if I actually try to succeed in doing my homework, won't that make Billy feel bad? I don't want to hurt his self esteem. Maybe you could talk to the principle and he'd let everyone in the school graduate Summa Cum Laude, so no one gets their feelings hurt."

<fast forward another decade>

" Mr Smith, I know you're the boss of this corporation, but I gotta tell you, I disagree with your decision to fire Billy. I know he's late every day, and he sleeps half the work day away, and he's never completed a single project, but if you fire him, that'll hurt his self esteem. I recommend that you promote every employee to the position of President & CEO, regardless of their performance, so we're all winners."

 

Please tell me that T-ball doesn't make "everyone a winner".

<climbs off soap box>

 

 

make room up there for me.

 

yes, in tee ball every game is officially a tie.

 

me, i believe that losing holds important life lessons.

 

we loved our teams, win or lose. even the seasons where we couldn't win any games at all. we loved our teams so fiercely and so jubilantly that often other teams felt cheated by our failure to look like we were losing.

 

of all the cheers we had from the sidelines, the two most hated were "we love us! hooray for us!" and "le poisson de ma mere est heureux de vous voir!"

 

you get a whole bunch of people to stand and shout that at a ball game, by golly, and you've got some fun.

[+tozainamboku]

For that matter you can just take your current coordinates, make a few random changes to the numbers to come up with a waypoint that's not too far away, and go try to find where the new waypoint is.

Wasn't that a locationless cache?

[+sbell111]

... So, back to my question: If the cache had been more interesting, would you have been able to enjoy it?

Thanx!

I'm feeling charitable, so I'll fall into the trap you so patiently have been waiting with.

 

Sure, I would enjoy a cache that was more interesting than the hypothetical cache. However, I enjoyed the cache in my example. That being said, based on your posts, I don't believe that changing the cache to meet your desired level of standards would allow it to give the pleasure that it gave me. Your solution would destroy the experience for others.

 

I better solution really is to let others play the game the way that they want, as long as it is within the guidelines.

[+sbell111]

T-Ball is a game played by kids seven and under. Its purpose is to teach the kids teambuilding and rudimentary skills that they will later use in baseball.

 

Some leagues score, some don't. Either way, I don't see it as a big deal if the game fails to teach kids how to win or lose. There's plenty of time remaining to learn that lesson and plenty of alternative venues in which to learn it.

Edited September 14, 2008 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

Your solution would destroy the experience for others.

My solution? I thought I made it rather clear that my solution, (regardless of how you phrased the question), was to do nothing.

 

Q-1) "What changes would you make to that cache?"

A-1) "None. It's not mine"

 

Q-2) "What changes would you propose for that cache?"

A-2) "I don't know. I haven't seen the cache. Until I do, how can I possibly propose a change, even hypothetically?"

 

So, how is doing nothing goind to destroy the experience for others?

Thanx!

[+Too Tall John]

Who, exactly, is "vocal about allowing any level of quality of cache" ... ?

Um, you.

Really?

 

When did I ever post that I am against "allowing any level of quality" in a cache?

 

A smell a straw man.

Time out!

 

I think that KBI misread one of the sentences that talk about "allowing any level of quality."

 

Let me line them up so you can easily see the difference:

 

.....about allowing any level of quality...

...against allowing any level of quality...

 

CR is saying that you, KBI, are vocal about allowing caches despite quality level. You then asked him where you've ever spoken against the thing he says you are for.

 

There, hopefully that clears that up. Now, let's get back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

 

Time in!

[+KBI]

There, hopefully that clears that up. Now, let's get back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

Hopefully you're right.

 

I've already asked Coyote, out of curiosity, to clarify what he actually meant when he posted his comment. Hopefully he'll respond with an elucidation. Hopefully your interpretation – the far more rational-sounding one – will be the correct one.

 

Hopefully he didn't mean it as the strawman it appeared to be. Hopefully I made a horrible misinterpretation about Coyote’s meaning, and not Coyote about mine.

 

Hopefully your version is the correct one, and he has actually begun to embrace tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, and my horrible misinterpretation was based on his previous, far less tolerant view – which is hopefully now obsolete.

[+fizzymagic]

So, how is doing nothing goind to destroy the experience for others?

You thought bad thoughts, CR. Your thinking bad thoughts was bad enough, but then you had the gall to say something KBI, MushT, or SB disagreed with. Doing that is automatically trying to impose your will on others and is bad, bad, bad.

 

[Clan Riffster]

I sure hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive me.

[+TrailGators]

I sure hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive me.

You and fizzy are funny. Edited September 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

So, how is doing nothing goind to destroy the experience for others?

You thought bad thoughts, CR. Your thinking bad thoughts was bad enough, but then you had the gall to say something KBI, MushT, or SB disagreed with. Doing that is automatically trying to impose your will on others and is bad, bad, bad.

 

Whatever. I get that we are often snarky in our posts, but perhaps you could start actually adding to threads, rather than just dropping in to be 'smart'. (Note that this sentence took a little rewrite to meet the forum guidelines.)

 

Clan Riffster obviously wouldn't make changes to an active cache owned by someone else, and I wasn't suggesting that he would. However, if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist. He would have altered the game in a way that would have displeased other cachers. That is why a better solution to the 'lame' issue. Is to simply make the changes that I discussed in post 199. Of course, being responsible for your own happiness isn't nearly as much fun as forcing change on everyone else, is it?

[+KBI]

So, how is doing nothing goind to destroy the experience for others?

You thought bad thoughts, CR. Your thinking bad thoughts was bad enough, but then you had the gall to say something KBI, MushT, or SB disagreed with. Doing that is automatically trying to impose your will on others and is bad, bad, bad.

 

Whatever. I get that we are often snarky in our posts, but perhaps you could start actually adding to threads, rather than just dropping in to be 'smart'. (Note that this sentence took a little rewrite to meet the forum guidelines.)

 

Clan Riffster obviously wouldn't make changes to an active cache owned by someone else, and I wasn't suggesting that he would. However, if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist. He would have altered the game in a way that would have displeased other cachers. That is why a better solution to the 'lame' issue is to simply make the changes that I discussed in post 199. Of course, being responsible for your own happiness isn't nearly as much fun as forcing change on everyone else, is it?

I agree with your take on Clan Riffster's announced campaign (an annnouncement followed up with backpedal) to change the entire hobby in order to suit his personal taste.

 

I therefore also agree with Fizzy: Clan Riffster's thinking bad thoughts was bad enough, but then he had the gall to say something about it out loud. In doing so CR made clear his intent to impose his will on others, and that is bad, bad, bad.

 

When someone so clearly expresses his intent to impose his personal taste and preference on others (as CR originally did before backpedalling) I will speak out about it, and I will not apologize for expressing my objections. I assume by Fizzy’s post that Fizzy is not only okay with this, but that Fizzy applauds all such legitimate expressions of protest.

[Mushtang]

So, how is doing nothing goind to destroy the experience for others?

You thought bad thoughts, CR. Your thinking bad thoughts was bad enough, but then you had the gall to say something KBI, MushT, or SB disagreed with. Doing that is automatically trying to impose your will on others and is bad, bad, bad.

 

Whatever. I get that we are often snarky in our posts, but perhaps you could start actually adding to threads, rather than just dropping in to be 'smart'. (Note that this sentence took a little rewrite to meet the forum guidelines.)

If this is like most of Fizzy's other posts, it's just a drive by posting and he won't be back to reply to you. Perhaps I'll be wrong this time.

 

Clan Riffster obviously wouldn't make changes to an active cache owned by someone else, and I wasn't suggesting that he would. However, if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist. He would have altered the game in a way that would have displeased other cachers. That is why a better solution to the 'lame' issue. Is to simply make the changes that I discussed in post 199. Of course, being responsible for your own happiness isn't nearly as much fun as forcing change on everyone else, is it?

It's funny how the cache bashers label us with the title Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame and then later decide to play innocent and claim they never call caches lame. They rail often against caches that aren't up to their high expectations as being worthless and even bad for the game, but then like to play innocent and act like they never suggested these caches shouldn't exist.

 

The truth is I've never found a cache that I didn't enjoy finding to some degree. And not just because I got a smiley for it, although that is indeed part of the attraction for me. Some caches definitely please me more than others, and I can see why they would have the same viewpoint. The thing we disagree with is I'd never be arrogant enough to suggest that since a cache didn't please ME then it must be "lame" with absolutely no redeeming value to anyone else either. This is the attitude that the cache bashers give me the impression that they have a lot of the time.

[+KBI]

The thing we disagree with is I'd never be arrogant enough to suggest that since a cache didn't please ME then it must be "lame" with absolutely no redeeming value to anyone else either.

Agreed, but that wasn't my objection in this case.

 

THIS was my objection:

 

There are those among us who perceive that an uninspired cache has a detrimental effect on the game. ... As a member of this group, I feel it is important to do everything in my power to prevent the hiding of uninspired caches ...

That statement regarding CR’s intent to modify the hobby to suit his tastes was neither vague nor ambiguous.

 

But then not only did CR proceed to ignore my posted objection (as expected); he also responded to SBell’s objections by backpedalling off of his statement.

 

Maybe he somehow sensed Fizzy's disapproval in advance.

[Mushtang]

The thing we disagree with is I'd never be arrogant enough to suggest that since a cache didn't please ME then it must be "lame" with absolutely no redeeming value to anyone else either.

Agreed, but that wasn't my objection in this case.

I wasn't trying to explain your objection, I was disagreeing with the cache bashers.

[Clan Riffster]

if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist.

I think you may be confused about what, exactly, my "posted whims" are. I'll spell them out for you, just in case you're interested:

 

1 ) Take pride in your hide.

(Hey, that sounds almost like a campaign slogan! )

I realize that this is simply my own biased aesthetics at work, but we're discussing my whims, right? In that regard, I dislike those caches in which absolutely no thought has been given to the location, the container, the hide style and the write up. Fortunately, these stinkers are fairly easy to avoid, so I don't come across them too often.

 

I don't know if the cache you were discussing would qualify as a stinker in that regard, but for argument's sake, let's pretend it does. How then can a stinker be made a non-stinker, in the eyes of your average Riffster, without making any radical changes to the basic hide? (Remember, this is all pure speculation) Exchange the black & grey film canister for a container which will actually protect its contents, such as one of those opaque film canister with the lid that pops into the body, or even a waterproof match container. Instant improvement, without altering the fundamentals of the hide. Another improvement, (again in accordance with my own biased aesthetics), would be typing more than 5 words on the cache page. Tell your seekers about the location. What was it that brought you here as a hider. What is it you'd like them to experience. Perhaps share a bit of local lore about the location. These two, (admittedly biased), improvement suggestions would not change the hide into something you couldn't find in a kwick search, so they shouldn't impact your decision to look for it whilst engaged in a run to the store. The only exception I can think of are those folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement. If you set up your PQ to avoid any caches with more than 5 words in the text of the cache page, then this hypothetical cache that I invented would no longer be available to you. Similarly, if you knew from previous finds that the hider of this hypothetical cache liked to utilize quality containers instead of carpy ones, and your zealous preference for carpy containers led you to place all their remaining hides on your ignore list, than this would also make the cache unavailable to you.

 

2 ) Do your best.

 

But what about those hiders who are so absolutely devoid of even the tiniest spark of creativity that they simply are unable to envision anything beyond what the average Riffster would consider to be carp? How would my evil, nefarious plot affect their hides? Simply put, it wouldn't. At that point, one would need to fall back onto the other portion of my cache aesthetics platform: "Do the best you can". If a hider has done their utmost best, then regardless of the outcome, they've demonstrated that they have pride in their hide, and as such, they've met the first element in my entirely biased cache hiding aesthetic.

 

So, as you can plainly see, my heinous plot to violently twist all caching to fit my personal preferences would not, in this case, cause this hypothetical cache to suddenly cease to exist. It would still be right where you found it, and the D/T would not change at all. Yet, in one fell swoop, it would become more interesting. That is what I advocate.

[+KBI]

if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist.

I think you may be confused about what, exactly, my "posted whims" are. I'll spell them out for you, just in case you're interested:

 

1 ) Take pride in your hide.

(Hey, that sounds almost like a campaign slogan! )

I realize that this is simply my own biased aesthetics at work, but we're discussing my whims, right? In that regard, I dislike those caches in which absolutely no thought has been given to the location, the container, the hide style and the write up. Fortunately, these stinkers are fairly easy to avoid, so I don't come across them too often.

 

I don't know if the cache you were discussing would qualify as a stinker in that regard, but for argument's sake, let's pretend it does. How then can a stinker be made a non-stinker, in the eyes of your average Riffster, without making any radical changes to the basic hide? (Remember, this is all pure speculation) Exchange the black & grey film canister for a container which will actually protect its contents, such as one of those opaque film canister with the lid that pops into the body, or even a waterproof match container. Instant improvement, without altering the fundamentals of the hide. Another improvement, (again in accordance with my own biased aesthetics), would be typing more than 5 words on the cache page. Tell your seekers about the location. What was it that brought you here as a hider. What is it you'd like them to experience. Perhaps share a bit of local lore about the location. These two, (admittedly biased), improvement suggestions would not change the hide into something you couldn't find in a kwick search, so they shouldn't impact your decision to look for it whilst engaged in a run to the store. The only exception I can think of are those folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement. If you set up your PQ to avoid any caches with more than 5 words in the text of the cache page, then this hypothetical cache that I invented would no longer be available to you. Similarly, if you knew from previous finds that the hider of this hypothetical cache liked to utilize quality containers instead of carpy ones, and your zealous preference for carpy containers led you to place all their remaining hides on your ignore list, than this would also make the cache unavailable to you.

 

2 ) Do your best.

 

But what about those hiders who are so absolutely devoid of even the tiniest spark of creativity that they simply are unable to envision anything beyond what the average Riffster would consider to be carp? How would my evil, nefarious plot affect their hides? Simply put, it wouldn't. At that point, one would need to fall back onto the other portion of my cache aesthetics platform: "Do the best you can". If a hider has done their utmost best, then regardless of the outcome, they've demonstrated that they have pride in their hide, and as such, they've met the first element in my entirely biased cache hiding aesthetic.

 

So, as you can plainly see, my heinous plot to violently twist all caching to fit my personal preferences would not, in this case, cause this hypothetical cache to suddenly cease to exist. It would still be right where you found it, and the D/T would not change at all. Yet, in one fell swoop, it would become more interesting. That is what I advocate.

I have no objection to ANY of this.

 

I share your preference for creative caches. Encouraging creativity among others, as you have just described, is commendable. Demanding changes in the way others freely choose to create their caches, on the other hand, as you implied earlier you wanted to do, is despicable.

 

I can’t tell whether this is a recant of your original statement of intent, or a clarification of what you really meant to say all along – but either way, I’m happy to hear it.

 

I only have one question, and this is purely out of curiosity:

 

The only exception I can think of are those folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement.

Who are the "folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement?" Have any of these strange people ever posted descriptions of their bizarre preference here in the forums? If so, can you provide links?

[+sbell111]

I think I've posted that I avoid most puzzle caches, caches that require a boat and Wherigo caches (because I don't have the proper equipment). Perhaps he was referring to that. I would hope that everyone was wise enough to avoid caches that don't churn their butter, but I guess that this is frowned on by some.

[Clan Riffster]

Demanding changes in the way others freely choose to create their caches, on the other hand, as you implied earlier you wanted to do, is despicable.

 

If you are referring to me, I would not, and have not, "demanded" anything, from anyone. I would agree with your implication that those cachers who demand the game be played a certain way are crass. Perhaps you're referring to my earlier, "do everything in my power to prevent" post? If that's the case, keep in mind that I have very little power. "Everything In My Power" would be limited to the following:

A ) Hiding the kind of caches which I feel will encourage others to strive for the best cache they can hide.

B ) Praising those cachers who go the extra mile in their hides.

C ) Offering guidance to those folks who ask for help.

D ) Expressing my distaste in a generalized way, for those types of caches which do not appeal to my own, biased caching aesthetic.

 

You can choose to view this as a backpeddle, though obviously I don't see it that way, since, from my vantage point, my views, both expressed and implied, have not changed, or you can view this as a clarification of my earlier stated position. The ball's in your court.

 

Who are the "folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement?"

 

That was strictly hypothetical. I was allowing that these folks could, conceivably exist, in an attempt to cover all the bases in the direction the debate was headed. I have never met anyone like that, nor have I heard of anyone like that. If I ever do meet someone who is allergic to creativity, I'll be sure and let you know.

[+Too Tall John]

Hopefully your version is the correct one, and he has actually begun to embrace tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, and my horrible misinterpretation was based on his previous, far less tolerant view – which is hopefully now obsolete.

Actually, he said it was your view, not his.

 

I think that your framing of his view is a bit ironic. If he were to say that your views are all loosey-goosey and will be the end of geocaching, I know you'd object.

 

One man's tolerance is another mans lowering of standards.

[CoyoteRed]

CR is saying that you, KBI, are vocal about allowing caches despite quality level. You then asked him where you've ever spoken against the thing he says you are for.

Ah-yep.

 

Hopefully I made a horrible misinterpretation about Coyote’s meaning, and not Coyote about mine.

Ah-yep

 

Hopefully your version is the correct one, and he has actually begun to embrace tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, and my horrible misinterpretation was based on his previous, far less tolerant view – which is hopefully now obsolete.

Ah-nope.

 

CoyoteRed says there are cachers who hate creativity.

I did? ...or was that another "horrible misinterpretation?"

 

As was sitting here composing this post a thought struck me. I deleted the rest of what I was going to say for this. I'm wondering if those who are so vocal about allowing any level of quality of cache, especially by those with the experience and skills to place better, and yet they themselves place decent caches ...

Who are these quality-hating people to whom you refer?

I did? Point me, please.

~crickets~

Wasn't asking a personal opinion, just point to where you thought I posted something about folks hating quality.

 

"Misinterpretation" or "misrepresentation?" Looks like you do a lot of that.

[+KBI]

You can choose to view this as a backpeddle, though obviously I don't see it that way, since, from my vantage point, my views, both expressed and implied, have not changed, or you can view this as a clarification of my earlier stated position.

If what you say is true – and I have no reason to doubt you – then I am happy to know that the misunderstanding resulted from an unfortunate misinterpretation on my part, and I humbly apologize for any confusion caused. I say I am happy about that because the alternative explanation – the one you have now explained away – was a far more troubling thing to contemplate.

 

Who are the "folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement?"

That was strictly hypothetical. I was allowing that these folks could, conceivably exist, in an attempt to cover all the bases in the direction the debate was headed. I have never met anyone like that, nor have I heard of anyone like that. If I ever do meet someone who is allergic to creativity, I'll be sure and let you know.

Nice.

[+KBI]

Hopefully I made a horrible misinterpretation about Coyote’s meaning, and not Coyote about mine.

Ah-yep

Good to hear it. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

 

Hopefully your version is the correct one, and he has actually begun to embrace tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, and my horrible misinterpretation was based on his previous, far less tolerant view – which is hopefully now obsolete.

Ah-nope.

That's too bad.

 

What do you have against embracing tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, Coyote? Why can you not respect the preferences and tastes of others in the same the way you always insist that others respect yours?

 

[Edited to add one more question:] What makes you think that anyone is ever going to give a crap about what you prefer when you go a-caching, or that anyone is ever going to bow to your insistence that people place hides that are more acceptable to your personal minimum entertainment requirements ... when you make it repeatedly clear that you don’t give a crap about what anyone else enjoys?

Edited September 14, 2008 by KBI

[Clan Riffster]

De nada.

 

Post script: Love your signature line!

[+sbell111]

if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist.

I think you may be confused about what, exactly, my "posted whims" are. I'll spell them out for you, just in case you're interested:

 

1 ) Take pride in your hide. ...

I've never met a cacher who was ashamed of his/her hides. Therefore, I doubt that there are any cachers who don't take pride in their caches. Of course, some in this forum take pride to the point of hubris and argue that they know better than others as to what caches should exist.

2 ) Do your best.

I'm not even sure what this means.

 

Let's take a look at the hypothetical cache in terms of 'doing your best'.

• Location - the hypothetical cache location allows those who like to cache while running errands to quickly find a cache. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
  
• Container - Normally, I am not a fan of the snapover-lidded film cans because they frequently leak. However, hiding the micro under a light pole skirt gives it added protection against the weather. Therefore, any film can is good for this type of hide. I've never seen a wet log in a film can under a lamp skirt.
  
• Cache page verbiage - In my opinion, a wordy description doesn't make a cache better. When I started playing this game, the vast majority of caches had no description or had only a list of trade items as the description. Those caches weren't bad simply because you didn't have a ton of verbiage on the page.
  

It turns out that doing my best to make a great cache that fit my hypothetical goals led me to a film can LPM.

 

My point, in case it was missed, is that each cache owner decides what his/her cache will be. As long as it meats the guidelines, it's a good cache, in my book.

Edited September 14, 2008 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

What do you have against embracing tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, Coyote? Why can you not respect the preferences and tastes of others in the same the way you always insist that others respect yours?

We're not talking styles. I'm not down on micros, LPCs, urbans, etc. I'm down on lack of quality. I'm down on the lack of desire to entertain with their caches.

 

I noticed you never addressed the idea to which I alluded earlier:

I'm wondering if those who are so vocal about allowing any level of quality of cache, especially by those with the experience and skills to place better, and yet they themselves place decent caches, is it because they want their caches to stand out from the crowd so much they lower the overall standard of caching for that to happen? "I, Mr. Magnanimous Cacher, think all the little folk should have their little caches for their caching game. After all, if they want a good cache they can come and look at mine! See how much better my caches are than theirs?"

Why do you enjoy putting out decent caches (I can only assume they are from what I've read), enjoy finding decent caches, yet so vocal about allowing any level of quality to be placed? This escapes me. Wouldn't you want more enjoyable cache to hunt or do you have fun pointing and laughing at the pitiful examples of others?

[+TrailGators]

if the game were changed to meet his posted whims, caches like my hypothetical one would, therefore, no longer exist.

I think you may be confused about what, exactly, my "posted whims" are. I'll spell them out for you, just in case you're interested:

 

1 ) Take pride in your hide.

(Hey, that sounds almost like a campaign slogan! )

I realize that this is simply my own biased aesthetics at work, but we're discussing my whims, right? In that regard, I dislike those caches in which absolutely no thought has been given to the location, the container, the hide style and the write up. Fortunately, these stinkers are fairly easy to avoid, so I don't come across them too often.

 

I don't know if the cache you were discussing would qualify as a stinker in that regard, but for argument's sake, let's pretend it does. How then can a stinker be made a non-stinker, in the eyes of your average Riffster, without making any radical changes to the basic hide? (Remember, this is all pure speculation) Exchange the black & grey film canister for a container which will actually protect its contents, such as one of those opaque film canister with the lid that pops into the body, or even a waterproof match container. Instant improvement, without altering the fundamentals of the hide. Another improvement, (again in accordance with my own biased aesthetics), would be typing more than 5 words on the cache page. Tell your seekers about the location. What was it that brought you here as a hider. What is it you'd like them to experience. Perhaps share a bit of local lore about the location. These two, (admittedly biased), improvement suggestions would not change the hide into something you couldn't find in a kwick search, so they shouldn't impact your decision to look for it whilst engaged in a run to the store. The only exception I can think of are those folks who intentionally ignore/avoid those caches which demonstrate a bit of thought in their placement. If you set up your PQ to avoid any caches with more than 5 words in the text of the cache page, then this hypothetical cache that I invented would no longer be available to you. Similarly, if you knew from previous finds that the hider of this hypothetical cache liked to utilize quality containers instead of carpy ones, and your zealous preference for carpy containers led you to place all their remaining hides on your ignore list, than this would also make the cache unavailable to you.

 

2 ) Do your best.

 

But what about those hiders who are so absolutely devoid of even the tiniest spark of creativity that they simply are unable to envision anything beyond what the average Riffster would consider to be carp? How would my evil, nefarious plot affect their hides? Simply put, it wouldn't. At that point, one would need to fall back onto the other portion of my cache aesthetics platform: "Do the best you can". If a hider has done their utmost best, then regardless of the outcome, they've demonstrated that they have pride in their hide, and as such, they've met the first element in my entirely biased cache hiding aesthetic.

 

So, as you can plainly see, my heinous plot to violently twist all caching to fit my personal preferences would not, in this case, cause this hypothetical cache to suddenly cease to exist. It would still be right where you found it, and the D/T would not change at all. Yet, in one fell swoop, it would become more interesting. That is what I advocate.

I have no objection to ANY of this.

 

I share your preference for creative caches. Encouraging creativity among others, as you have just described, is commendable. Demanding changes in the way others freely choose to create their caches, on the other hand, as you implied earlier you wanted to do, is despicable.

I agree with CR. I try to encourage others to do this as well. It's always nice to hear people speaking up. If we are lucky maybe a few people will listen. Finally, I have never interpreted CR to be "demanding." If someone felt like someone was demanding then all they would have to do is click the little red "X" in the upper right corner of the page.

[+KBI]

What do you have against embracing tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences, Coyote? Why can you not respect the preferences and tastes of others in the same the way you always insist that others respect yours?

We're not talking styles. I'm not down on micros, LPCs, urbans, etc. I'm down on lack of quality. I'm down on the lack of desire to entertain with their caches.

Correction: You are down on their lack of desire to entertain YOU with their caches.

 

There is no evidence to support your claim that the hider of ANY cache placed his cache with "lack of desire to entertain."

 

You have made it quite clear in the past that you don’t care who else a particular hide entertains, and that you dismiss a large number of happy-sounding and thankful 'Fount It' logs as being irrelevant to the measure of the worthiness of a hide.

 

If a hide entertains anybody, then what does it matter whether it entertains YOU? I have never been so arrogant as to insist that every geocache meet with my own aesthetic approval. Why do you?

 

All those caches you despise exist because someone thought they would be fun to hide. All those caches you despise keep getting found and logged because someone perceived them to be enjoyable when they found them. Just because the preferences of all those people are different from your preferences doesn’t mean their preferences are inferior to yours.

 

I noticed you never addressed the idea to which I alluded earlier:

I'm wondering if those who are so vocal about allowing any level of quality of cache, especially by those with the experience and skills to place better, and yet they themselves place decent caches, is it because they want their caches to stand out from the crowd so much they lower the overall standard of caching for that to happen? "I, Mr. Magnanimous Cacher, think all the little folk should have their little caches for their caching game. After all, if they want a good cache they can come and look at mine! See how much better my caches are than theirs?"

Why do you enjoy putting out decent caches (I can only assume they are from what I've read), enjoy finding decent caches, yet so vocal about allowing any level of quality to be placed? This escapes me.

Because it’s not my place to insist that everyone else entertain ME.

 

Because it’s not my place to tell people with differing tastes what they should and should not enjoy.

 

Because it’s not my place to whine when I have not been "adequately entertained to my demanding satisfaction" by my fellow amateur volunteers.

 

Because I understand that everyone’s taste is unique, and because that is a state I would much rather experience than the one where everyone does everything my way.

 

And of course it’s because I understand that even if I wanted to make everyone do everything my way, that is simply not option here in the real world.

 

The reason I didn’t initially respond to your out-loud pondering is because you seemed to be implying that people who hide creative caches ONLY tolerate the lesser hides of others in the belief that those lesser hides might make their own hides look better in comparison. I thought such an idea was so obviously absurd that it didn’t deserve a response.

 

Wouldn't you want more enjoyable cache to hunt ...?

There are already WAY more enjoyable caches for me to hunt than I have time for. Why would I demand that the rest of them be adjusted to suit my individual taste?

 

...or do you have fun pointing and laughing at the pitiful examples of others?

You mean like you always crow about doing? Yes, sometimes. Is there something wrong with that? What’s your point?

[+fizzymagic]

If this is like most of Fizzy's other posts, it's just a drive by posting and he won't be back to reply to you. Perhaps I'll be wrong this time.

I continually fail to understand why you think I would waste my time engaging in a discussion with people who have repeatedly shown they are not willing to do so in good faith. It makes no sense to me.

 

I spend my time actually trying to make geocaching better for everyone, thank you very much. In fact, I've just finished my part of a project that is quite exciting and should be released in about week...

 

These threads are all exactly the same, with identical arguments and debating "tactics" employed over and over again. It's amusing once in a while to drop by and read them, and sometimes I can't resist posting a snarky remark, but only a newbie or a fool would expect to get anything productive out of them.

 

As a lark, a while ago, I wrote up a typical thread about lame caches. I just updated it a little to reflect some of the new silliness. Here it is:

 

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

 

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching. The dialog here is completely fictional. Anyt resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental.

 

Cacher: I had a frustrating experience this week. I went out to seek a cache, and while I was looking I discovered that within 10 feet of the cache somebody had used the area as a toilet. I told the owner but he wouldn't archive or move the cache. I think it's not acceptable. Caches with poop nearby are disgusting and lame.

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby. Why are you trying to enforce your narrow view of what is "good" on everybody else?

 

C: I can't believe that anybody thinks human feces near a cache is acceptable. It's a health hazard.

 

Troll 2: Some people think McDonald's is a health hazard. Lucky for us they haven't gotten McDonald's banned yet. You assume that you are the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a health hazard.

 

Troll 3: Nobody forced you to seek this cache. If you don't like it, just don't seek it.

 

C: But how was I supposed to know that this cache had human feces right next to it?

 

T3: The site has plenty of ways for you to filter out caches you don't like. Why are you trying to ban caches near poop for everyone just because you don't like them?

 

C: But it's human feces! What am I supposed to do, look through all the logs on every cache to be sure nobody mentions poop near the cache? I'm not trying to tell everyody how to play, I just want to not have to dig through unsanitary trash or poop to find a cache.

 

T1: I just can't understand why you are so upset. Why can't you just let it go and ignore this cache and let everyone play the game the way they want to?

 

T2: Your argument makes no sense. First you say that caches with poo nearby are unacceptable, and then you backtrack and say you're not trying to enforce your preferences on everyone. You're just being dishonest.

 

C: I am upset because I ran into something disgusting at a cache and now I am being attacked because I didn't like it.

 

T2: Nobody is attacking you. I'm just commenting on what you said. And what you said is that you want to have poopy caches banned for everyone, just because you don't like them.

 

T3: You have a choice about what to get upset over. If you can't handle poo near caches, then don't hunt them. If you can't handle honest responses to your comments here in the forum, then you must not be very smart.

 

C: Why are you guys defending caches with human feces near them?

 

T2: I never defended poopy caches. Show me one place where I said I thought poopy caches were good!

 

T3: What do you have against embracing tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences?

 

C: But...

 

T2: I never said that. Show me one place in my posts where I used the word "but." We are talking about poop here, not buts. Don't try to change the subject from your attempts to make everyone else play the game your way or not at all.

 

C: But you implied that poopy caches are a good thing...

 

T2: I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were completely clear and you chose to misunderstand them. Come on, you're dodging my questions. Come up with one place I said poopy caches were good.

 

T1: You're avoiding the question. Why do you think that everyone should have to honor your version of what is "lame" and what is not?

 

C: I give up.

 

T2: Typical. You can't defend your argument, so you just leave.

Edited September 14, 2008 by fizzymagic

[+KBI]

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching.

 

.....

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you actually met someone in real life who argued that "some people like seeking caches with poop nearby?"

[+sbell111]

If this is like most of Fizzy's other posts, it's just a drive by posting and he won't be back to reply to you. Perhaps I'll be wrong this time.

I continually fail to understand why you think I would waste my time engaging in a discussion with people who have repeatedly shown they are not willing to do so in good faith. It makes no sense to me.

 

I spend my time actually trying to make geocaching better for everyone, thank you very much. In fact, I've just finished my part of a project that is quite exciting and should be released in about week...

We should all thank the Lord that we all have you to save the game from itself.

These threads are all exactly the same, with identical arguments and debating "tactics" employed over and over again. It's amusing once in a while to drop by and read them, and sometimes I can't resist posting a snarky remark, but only a newbie or a fool would expect to get anything productive out of them.

I agree. Only a fool or a newbie would expect to get anything productive out of your snarky, hit and run, off-topic posts.

 

Sadly, there was a time when you could be counted on to share useful information in threads. Alas, that was years ago. After a few years of your posting little but snark, I suspect that most posters have lost any respect for you that you had earned. I know that I have.

 

The change in you truly is sad and depressing. I, for one, hope you can turn it around.

[+sbell111]

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching.

 

.....

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you actually met someone in real life who argued that "some people like seeking caches with poop nearby?"

I'm not sure, but I think that his point is that anyone who disagrees with him is a troll. The sad thing is that, based on his posts, I think that he truly believes that. Some people simply can't find it within themselves to allow for the fact that others disagree and that the simple fact that there is disagreement doesn't mean that the world (or the game) is coming to an end.

[Mushtang]

As a lark, a while ago, I wrote up a typical thread about lame caches. I just updated it a little to reflect some of the new silliness.

I think it's time to update it again. You forgot to stick a straw-man argument in there. For example, suggesting that anyone would agree that "Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby" and then trying to argue how stupid that would be.

[+KBI]

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching.

 

.....

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you actually met someone in real life who argued that "some people like seeking caches with poop nearby?"

I'm not sure, but I think that his point is that anyone who disagrees with him is a troll. The sad thing is that, based on his posts, I think that he truly believes that. Some people simply can't find it within themselves to allow for the fact that others disagree and that the simple fact that there is disagreement doesn't mean that the world (or the game) is coming to an end.

If I ever develop an angry superiority complex like what we just saw here, please shoot me dead.

[+sbell111]

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching.

 

.....

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you actually met someone in real life who argued that "some people like seeking caches with poop nearby?"

I'm not sure, but I think that his point is that anyone who disagrees with him is a troll. The sad thing is that, based on his posts, I think that he truly believes that. Some people simply can't find it within themselves to allow for the fact that others disagree and that the simple fact that there is disagreement doesn't mean that the world (or the game) is coming to an end.

If I ever develop an angry superiority complex like what we just saw here, please shoot me dead.

Dude, you didn't even have to ask.

[+fizzymagic]

If I ever develop an angry superiority complex like what we just saw here, please shoot me dead.

KBI, thanks. I completely forgot to include the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for giving such a good example.

 

Boy, I think maybe I touched a nerve or something! This is going to be fun to watch.

 

(where's the popcorn smiley when you need it?)

[Clan Riffster]

Fizzy, I think you're on to something.

[+KBI]

If I ever develop an angry superiority complex like what we just saw here, please shoot me dead.

KBI, thanks. I completely forgot to include the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for giving such a good example.

You mean your examples of calling your opponents "fools," calling your opponents "trolls," implying that you are the intellectual superior of everyone else – all while posting a long, rambling strawman and staying 100% off-topic – weren’t already awesome enough examples of glaring fallacies?

 

Sorry, I guess I just assumed you were posting tongue in cheek, and attempting to show everyone how NOT to persuade people to agree with you.

Edited September 14, 2008 by KBI

[+sbell111]

The next time I'm in Seattle, I'm looking for the micro hidden near here:

I'm sure that some probably would call the micro lame and say to just look at the TROLL, but I'm not a cache snob.

[+KBI]

Boy, I think maybe I touched a nerve or something! This is going to be fun to watch.

Waaaaait a minute -- this wording I've just quoted -- do I remember correctly -- doesn't this exact wording appear somewhere in the official definition of a "Forum Troll?"

 

Just to be safe, I think it's time for the Standard Troll Countermeasures. I think it's time to switch to Ignore.

[+Tresco]

I don't like lima beans.

[+TrailGators]

If I ever develop an angry superiority complex like what we just saw here, please shoot me dead.

KBI, thanks. I completely forgot to include the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for giving such a good example.

 

Boy, I think maybe I touched a nerve or something! This is going to be fun to watch.

 

(where's the popcorn smiley when you need it?)

I think you captured it very well Fizzy.

[+KBI]

Here is the pattern *I* have observed to be reliably consistent:

1. CoyoteRed posts something divisive and controversial.
   
2. CoyoteRed is invited to explain and defend his controversial comments via reasonable questions.
   
3. CoyoteRed avoids the questions, dances and obfuscates ... and eventually paints himself into a corner.
   
4. CoyoteRed disappears from the thread.
   
5. Just as CoyoteRed disappears, Fizzymagic shows up, suddenly and seemingly from out of nowhere, and posts a condescending, arrogant, and fallacy-laden broadside.
   

I have seen this regular pattern play out almost a dozen times now. I've been counting. One could set one's watch by it. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. I can’t tell for sure. I’m just reporting my observations.

 

Maybe at some point in all this noise Coyote will finally agree to answer my polite question. If so I hope he can make the best of the opportunity, and can convince someone to see his point of view.

 

Maybe at some point in all this noise Fizzy will post something relevant to the actual subject of the thread. If so, I don’t suppose I’ll be seeing it. As of this post I am now in Full DefCon One "Ignore" and "Don’t Feed" mode.

[+infiniteMPG]

Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you actually met someone in real life who argued that "some people like seeking caches with poop nearby?"

But did they find the cache? There are some caches lurking out there that are made from plastic poo.... I'd have to go with the doggy doo-bag stance in the hypothetical debate, clean it up or wash it away, end of story. And here in Florida this time of year, the wash away would happen every afternoon between 4-6PM.

 

But from what I have been reading here, "lame" is implied to be more in the lack of effort to make a good hide rather then something detrimental happening nearby. And IMHO it's only lack of effort if the owner has placed other quality caches yet one shows little effort with one particular one (if all their caches are similar then it's probably just the best they can do). Maybe people complaining about "lame hides" should get pro-active and organize and sponsor a big geocaching event and teach people how to hide what they think are quality hides. Anyone can complain, it's a special few who actually put forth effort to remedy what bothers them.

[Clan Riffster]

Speaking of poo near a cache:

When I was first setting up my Carpe Noctum night cache, one of the reviewers asked me if I was familiar with an archived night cache, Reflection Cache, which Incorporated almost exactly the same starting coords.

 

It had gone away prior to my expanding out my search area that far, so I never had any clue of its existence.

On August 22, 2004, just a few days after Hurricane Charlie slammed our area, a local legend risked life and limb, being the last person to hunt for it.

The flooding from the hurricane put the whole area under a butt load of water.

On June 7, 2005, the owner disabled it.

A couple reviewers asked about the status of the cache, and on October 7, 2005, the owner archived it.

On February 7, 2006, after being made aware of it, I decided to see how much of it, if any, survived.

 

I finally found the ammo can stuffed under a log. Apparently, somebody else found the log a good place to relieve themselves. The poo was only inches from the can.

 

No, it didn't detract from my find.

[+infiniteMPG]

No, it didn't detract from my find.

Similar situation with a cache I placed in NC that my nephew maintains for me. A few cachers complained of a "smell" on and around the cache and it turned out a homeless muggle had used the ammo can as a dinner table and spilled pork and beans all over the cache and the hiding spot and left the remainder of the can or beans nearby. A little clean up and some airing out of the area and all is well.....

[+TrailGators]

Maybe people complaining about "lame hides" should get pro-active and organize and sponsor a big geocaching event and teach people how to hide what they think are quality hides. Anyone can complain, it's a special few who actually put forth effort to remedy what bothers them.

This is one of the reasons that I put together the San Diego Consensus Favorites list. It allows people to go out and find local caches that are on many people's favorites lists. One of the best ways to learn is by example. Edited September 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

The next time I'm in Seattle, I'm looking for the micro hidden near here:

I'm sure that some probably would call the micro lame and say to just look at the TROLL, but I'm not a cache snob.

That would only be lame if some homeless person took a crap there.

 

I believe the issue has long ago move past banning caches that an individual considers lame. What I see now are people who believe that lame caches are caused by people tossing out caches "just for the numbers" and not putting any effort or thought into the cache. These people believe that if only cache hiders would try to be more creative we would all be caching in Lake Wobegon where all the caches are above average. Of course determining that cache is creative or that it was placed for some reason beyond just "for the numbers" is a bit like judging if a virtual cache was "Wow". It is subjective. Even just encouraging people to "put more thought" into their hides can be a problem for the same subjective reason. The Geocaching.com site already asks hiders to have read and understand the guidelines. Clearly some people just check the box without thinking, perhaps we could see some improvement it a test were required. Beyond this the site provides some additional instructions for first time cache hiders, and there are other websites and local geocaching organization with some very good tutorials. It seems that there very good resources out there to encourage people to hide caches that others may enjoy.

 

Geocaches are hidden in all kinds of places. Sometimes this is a secret location that a cacher wants to share. Other times its just in a convenient place with plenty of nearby parking. Because there is such a variety of locations, sometimes conditions at a cache change. If a person has hidden a cache in a location where muggles won't see you search for a cache, it is understandable if a person who needs to relieve themselves finds the same spot. I doubt very much that anyone is purposely hiding caches where people poop. But this does happen from time to time. It's not really different than when bees decide to move into the hollow in a tree where a cache is hidden. I would agree that cachers should move or archive their cache if the conditions change (or cachers looking for the cache discover some unacceptable conditions). Attacking the hider for a lame hide is unwarranted.

[+chuckwagon101]

[quote name=

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

 

Here is an example of how these threads always go, taken from a real-likfe experience I have had caching. The dialog here is completely fictional. Anyt resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental.

 

Cacher: I had a frustrating experience this week. I went out to seek a cache, and while I was looking I discovered that within 10 feet of the cache somebody had used the area as a toilet. I told the owner but he wouldn't archive or move the cache. I think it's not acceptable. Caches with poop nearby are disgusting and lame.

 

Troll 1: Who are you to say what is lame? Some people like seeking caches with poop nearby. Why are you trying to enforce your narrow view of what is "good" on everybody else?

 

C: I can't believe that anybody thinks human feces near a cache is acceptable. It's a health hazard.

 

Troll 2: Some people think McDonald's is a health hazard. Lucky for us they haven't gotten McDonald's banned yet. You assume that you are the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a health hazard.

 

Troll 3: Nobody forced you to seek this cache. If you don't like it, just don't seek it.

 

C: But how was I supposed to know that this cache had human feces right next to it?

 

T3: The site has plenty of ways for you to filter out caches you don't like. Why are you trying to ban caches near poop for everyone just because you don't like them?

 

C: But it's human feces! What am I supposed to do, look through all the logs on every cache to be sure nobody mentions poop near the cache? I'm not trying to tell everyody how to play, I just want to not have to dig through unsanitary trash or poop to find a cache.

 

T1: I just can't understand why you are so upset. Why can't you just let it go and ignore this cache and let everyone play the game the way they want to?

 

T2: Your argument makes no sense. First you say that caches with poo nearby are unacceptable, and then you backtrack and say you're not trying to enforce your preferences on everyone. You're just being dishonest.

 

C: I am upset because I ran into something disgusting at a cache and now I am being attacked because I didn't like it.

 

T2: Nobody is attacking you. I'm just commenting on what you said. And what you said is that you want to have poopy caches banned for everyone, just because you don't like them.

 

T3: You have a choice about what to get upset over. If you can't handle poo near caches, then don't hunt them. If you can't handle honest responses to your comments here in the forum, then you must not be very smart.

 

C: Why are you guys defending caches with human feces near them?

 

T2: I never defended poopy caches. Show me one place where I said I thought poopy caches were good!

 

T3: What do you have against embracing tolerance and diversity among other people's caching preferences?

 

C: But...

 

T2: I never said that. Show me one place in my posts where I used the word "but." We are talking about poop here, not buts. Don't try to change the subject from your attempts to make everyone else play the game your way or not at all.

 

C: But you implied that poopy caches are a good thing...

 

T2: I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were completely clear and you chose to misunderstand them. Come on, you're dodging my questions. Come up with one place I said poopy caches were good.

 

T1: You're avoiding the question. Why do you think that everyone should have to honor your version of what is "lame" and what is not?

 

C: I give up.

 

T2: Typical. You can't defend your argument, so you just leave.

 

LOL! I don't care what anyone says.....THAT right there is funny! LOL!

 

GREAT post Fizzy! I could just "see" and "hear" trolls number one, two and three.

 

The poor boob poster that was trying to get some support and maybe a TINY bit of understanding.........I could visualize him getting more frustrated by the minute!

 

You really know how to put together a funny parody!

[+infiniteMPG]

That would only be lame if some homeless person took a crap there.

Any homeless wandering around at night, crashing under the bridge in a sterno-induced-stuper and waking up to that thing would tend to have the crap scared outta them quite involuntarily

Of course determining that cache is creative or that it was placed for some reason beyond just "for the numbers" is a bit like judging if a virtual cache was "Wow". It is subjective. Even just encouraging people to "put more thought" into their hides can be a problem for the same subjective reason.

Guess I am missing the point of why someone would want to jack their numbers for hides rather then finds. Once you have a find you're done with it. Once you have a hide, you have to maintain as it's now your responsibility or else it will get archived. It's a lot of hassle and work (some of us enjoy it and think it's worth the effort).

....It's not really different than when bees decide to move into the hollow in a tree where a cache is hidden.

Or ants, or spiders, or squirrels, or wasps, or snakes.... good hiding spots are good homes for critters, too. And unfortunately for the homeless, too.

I would agree that cachers should move or archive their cache if the conditions change (or cachers looking for the cache discover some unacceptable conditions). Attacking the hider for a lame hide is unwarranted.

GC is for people's fun and I would bet some people, in their own twisted perspective, actually have fun judging and attacking someone else's efforts.