Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+sbell111]

My comment said nothing about it being sad AI had to follow guidelines, stop putting words in my mouth please!

You're right. My bad. I re-read your post several times, and nowhere did I see the following words:

I can only assume from this that the GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines. Sad, but that's likely the case!

Please accept my apology for putting words in your mouth.

Those of us who are able to competently parse and read English understand that the phrase beginning with "sad" refers to the opinion that TPTB have not yet realized something. The clause about following the guidelines was simply a reminder that even though the guidelines are perhaps not well considered, we are still bound to follow them. In no way did the poster ever imply that in general it is sad that one must follow guidelines, which is what you interpreted.

 

The poster may not have expressed his thoughts in the most felicitous manner, but the meaning was quite clear.

 

There are exactly two possible explanations for your misreading. One is that you are not able to competently parse and understand English. The other is that your misinterpretation is intentional, and was used to try to score rhetorical points. If the former is the case, I recommend that you not engage in debate in this forum until you have obtained some supplemental education. If it is the latter, then I suggest you not engage in debate in this forum until you can do so honestly.

 

But, of course, those are just suggestions.

THANKS Fizzy...I do have a slow mind and sometimes don't form my comments clearly, but I thought this one was crystal clear. You have affirmed this.

 

Also, I always assumed the second option with Mushtang, but you might be right. Maybe he doesn't understand what is read and I was shooting over his head (even with my slower thought ability)? Maybe I've misjudged him all along??

Fizzy, you are awesome with the math stuff, but apparently you are having trouble with written communications. In Roddy's post, 'that' refers to the issue described in the previous sentence. That sentence described two issues (note the use of the word 'and'). Those issues were 'GS PTB have yet to realize this' and 'IA has to follow their guidelines'. Therefore, we are forced to take away from that post that Roddy believes that it is sad that GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines.

 

Don't beat yourself up about this. written communications are hard. You still rock on the math stuff.

You know sbell, I was going to add that you were another that liked to play the twist game, but I thought better of naming someone without need, THANKS for outing yourself like this! You are just as much one to take a comment and twist it to fit into your little argument, another reason I have little respect for your arguments. You and Mushtang (and one other that'll likely chime in sooner or later) have aboslutely no credibility in my eyes, you want to make up things when you have nothing better to argue! You guys LOVE to put words in others' mouths and then claim against logic that we actually did say that! You'll snip and clip comments, leaving out the parts which won't fit your side, then say we made that statement...too funny, but it's an everyday occurance!

 

Funny, it's always you guys...

 

I pointed out exactly what I said right before Fizzy made the exact same point of it, funny how he can read it (as well as everyone else BUT you guys), yet you come here and accuse me of saying things like this! You guys play the same old game time after time after time and have lost all credibility and respect in my eyes!! Maybe you should stick to just arguing the points and STOP putting words in peoples' mouths?? Or can't you make an argument worth even trying to defend without this game you guys like to play??

 

Or, is it possible you too have problems reading what is put in front of you?? Am I shooting over your head too??

First, your post was rude. I don't know why you feel the need to be so rude. Surely, you could be less rude if you tried.

 

Second, My post was merely a comment on Fizzy's flawed breakdown of what you ACTUALLY posted.

 

Third, how can you possibly accuse me of putting words in your mouth? My post did nothing other than comment on the actual words that you posted. My post did not address what you meant by your post because I am not a mind reader. I took your post completely at face value and made no attempt to comment on anything you may or may not believe. I merely discussed the two sentences in question.

 

Finally, if you do not wish people to take your posts at face value, I suggest that you give them a hard read before posting them to the forums to ensure that your posts communicate the ideas that you intend for them to communicate.

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The beauty of the plan is that as a finder you can decide which caches are worth finding and which aren't. Sort them out of your files however you wish, but remember that you can abort a cache hunt at any moment. If you get to ground zero and find that you aren't enjoying yourself, go do something else.

 

Last point before I simply ignore you...as most people know, MANY will NOT just walk away from a cache once there. MANY have the mentality of "if the hider placed it, it must be OK" and make illogical assumptions that some things are safer because the owner said so! Many think they HAVE to find the cache (evidenced by all those who methodically erradicate EVERY SINGLE CACHE from their area) So, when finding a cache like an electric box, they have been trained to assume that OTHER hides (which might only be NEAR an electric box or such equipment) are safe and start opening stuff they shouldn't (and normally wouldn't if not for the reward of a smiley)! We've all seen it done, we've all heard about it being done (sprinkler head cache...the ground was all torn up or someone else finds a sprinkler has been damaged, electric box had the door ripped open etc), yet you still try to say it doesn't happen??

 

I guess you'll champion these hides until someone gets hurt? I'd rather let people know of the dangers (because we all know some don't understand the dangers) than let them get hurt. Lastly, you guys feel it only right that those not smart enough learn the hard way...brilliant!! Too bad tht some of those "not smart enough" hapen to be kids...let them learn the hard way too??

First, you are arguing that I've 'said' things that I have not. I'm not sure why you are doing this. How about from now on instead of merely posting that I 'say' things, you reference my actual posts? That would make for better dialogue.

 

Second, you appear to be arguing that once someone arrives at ground zero, that they will automatically 'seak and destroy' until they make a find. I believe that the vast majority of cachers do not use this method. I believe that most geocachers will give up the hunt if they arrive at a location that they would not like to be (or is illegal to go). I believe that most cachers will not do things that they deem to be too dangerous. I believe that most cachers understand that, due to error or a bid signal, they may not even be at the actual cache location. Given this, should I be concerned that an electrical box, a bird house, or a sprinkler head might be at the location that I didn't even send them to?

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

My comment said nothing about it being sad AI had to follow guidelines, stop putting words in my mouth please!

You're right. My bad. I re-read your post several times, and nowhere did I see the following words:

I can only assume from this that the GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines. Sad, but that's likely the case!

Please accept my apology for putting words in your mouth.

Those of us who are able to competently parse and read English understand that the phrase beginning with "sad" refers to the opinion that TPTB have not yet realized something. The clause about following the guidelines was simply a reminder that even though the guidelines are perhaps not well considered, we are still bound to follow them. In no way did the poster ever imply that in general it is sad that one must follow guidelines, which is what you interpreted.

 

The poster may not have expressed his thoughts in the most felicitous manner, but the meaning was quite clear.

 

There are exactly two possible explanations for your misreading. One is that you are not able to competently parse and understand English. The other is that your misinterpretation is intentional, and was used to try to score rhetorical points. If the former is the case, I recommend that you not engage in debate in this forum until you have obtained some supplemental education. If it is the latter, then I suggest you not engage in debate in this forum until you can do so honestly.

 

But, of course, those are just suggestions.

THANKS Fizzy...I do have a slow mind and sometimes don't form my comments clearly, but I thought this one was crystal clear. You have affirmed this.

 

Also, I always assumed the second option with Mushtang, but you might be right. Maybe he doesn't understand what is read and I was shooting over his head (even with my slower thought ability)? Maybe I've misjudged him all along??

Fizzy, you are awesome with the math stuff, but apparently you are having trouble with written communications. In Roddy's post, 'that' refers to the issue described in the previous sentence. That sentence described two issues (note the use of the word 'and'). Those issues were 'GS PTB have yet to realize this' and 'IA has to follow their guidelines'. Therefore, we are forced to take away from that post that Roddy believes that it is sad that GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines.

 

Don't beat yourself up about this. written communications are hard. You still rock on the math stuff.

You know sbell, I was going to add that you were another that liked to play the twist game, but I thought better of naming someone without need, THANKS for outing yourself like this! You are just as much one to take a comment and twist it to fit into your little argument, another reason I have little respect for your arguments. You and Mushtang (and one other that'll likely chime in sooner or later) have aboslutely no credibility in my eyes, you want to make up things when you have nothing better to argue! You guys LOVE to put words in others' mouths and then claim against logic that we actually did say that! You'll snip and clip comments, leaving out the parts which won't fit your side, then say we made that statement...too funny, but it's an everyday occurance!

 

Funny, it's always you guys...

 

I pointed out exactly what I said right before Fizzy made the exact same point of it, funny how he can read it (as well as everyone else BUT you guys), yet you come here and accuse me of saying things like this! You guys play the same old game time after time after time and have lost all credibility and respect in my eyes!! Maybe you should stick to just arguing the points and STOP putting words in peoples' mouths?? Or can't you make an argument worth even trying to defend without this game you guys like to play??

 

Or, is it possible you too have problems reading what is put in front of you?? Am I shooting over your head too??

First, your post was rude. I don't know why you feel the need to be so rude. Surely, you could be less rude if you tried.

 

Second, My post was merely a comment on Fizzy's flawed breakdown of what you ACTUALLY posted.

 

Third, how can you possibly accuse me of putting words in your mouth? My post did nothing other than comment on the actual words that you posted. My post did not address what you meant by your post because I am not a mind reader. I took your post completely at face value and made no attempt to comment on anything you may or may not believe. I merely discussed the two sentences in question.

 

Finally, if you do not wish people to take your posts at face value, I suggest that you give them a hard read before posting them to the forums to ensure that your posts communicate the ideas that you intend for them to communicate.

 

Surely you could stop mischaracterizing my words, but you haven't. I'm not being rude in the least, I'm pointing out what happens. If the truth hurts, change your approach!

 

You posted "your version" of what I said...far from the actual words I said, keep that clear! You say you're not a mind reader, but you sure do a good job of trying to read more into what's said than what is...and like I said, you and Mushtang and another are the ones who do this continually (and I'm not the only one who notices this...am I??).

 

"How about from now on instead of merely posting that I 'say' things, you reference my actual posts?" Hey, these are words YOU should be living by, not suggesting to someone else! When you can do this, maybe you'll realize others do!!

[earthcurrent]

must . . .

get . . .

last . . .

word . . .

 

 

*gasp*

[+sbell111]

My comment said nothing about it being sad AI had to follow guidelines, stop putting words in my mouth please!

You're right. My bad. I re-read your post several times, and nowhere did I see the following words:

I can only assume from this that the GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines. Sad, but that's likely the case!

Please accept my apology for putting words in your mouth.

Those of us who are able to competently parse and read English understand that the phrase beginning with "sad" refers to the opinion that TPTB have not yet realized something. The clause about following the guidelines was simply a reminder that even though the guidelines are perhaps not well considered, we are still bound to follow them. In no way did the poster ever imply that in general it is sad that one must follow guidelines, which is what you interpreted.

 

The poster may not have expressed his thoughts in the most felicitous manner, but the meaning was quite clear.

 

There are exactly two possible explanations for your misreading. One is that you are not able to competently parse and understand English. The other is that your misinterpretation is intentional, and was used to try to score rhetorical points. If the former is the case, I recommend that you not engage in debate in this forum until you have obtained some supplemental education. If it is the latter, then I suggest you not engage in debate in this forum until you can do so honestly.

 

But, of course, those are just suggestions.

THANKS Fizzy...I do have a slow mind and sometimes don't form my comments clearly, but I thought this one was crystal clear. You have affirmed this.

 

Also, I always assumed the second option with Mushtang, but you might be right. Maybe he doesn't understand what is read and I was shooting over his head (even with my slower thought ability)? Maybe I've misjudged him all along??

Fizzy, you are awesome with the math stuff, but apparently you are having trouble with written communications. In Roddy's post, 'that' refers to the issue described in the previous sentence. That sentence described two issues (note the use of the word 'and'). Those issues were 'GS PTB have yet to realize this' and 'IA has to follow their guidelines'. Therefore, we are forced to take away from that post that Roddy believes that it is sad that GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines.

 

Don't beat yourself up about this. written communications are hard. You still rock on the math stuff.

You know sbell, I was going to add that you were another that liked to play the twist game, but I thought better of naming someone without need, THANKS for outing yourself like this! You are just as much one to take a comment and twist it to fit into your little argument, another reason I have little respect for your arguments. You and Mushtang (and one other that'll likely chime in sooner or later) have aboslutely no credibility in my eyes, you want to make up things when you have nothing better to argue! You guys LOVE to put words in others' mouths and then claim against logic that we actually did say that! You'll snip and clip comments, leaving out the parts which won't fit your side, then say we made that statement...too funny, but it's an everyday occurance!

 

Funny, it's always you guys...

 

I pointed out exactly what I said right before Fizzy made the exact same point of it, funny how he can read it (as well as everyone else BUT you guys), yet you come here and accuse me of saying things like this! You guys play the same old game time after time after time and have lost all credibility and respect in my eyes!! Maybe you should stick to just arguing the points and STOP putting words in peoples' mouths?? Or can't you make an argument worth even trying to defend without this game you guys like to play??

 

Or, is it possible you too have problems reading what is put in front of you?? Am I shooting over your head too??

First, your post was rude. I don't know why you feel the need to be so rude. Surely, you could be less rude if you tried.

 

Second, My post was merely a comment on Fizzy's flawed breakdown of what you ACTUALLY posted.

 

Third, how can you possibly accuse me of putting words in your mouth? My post did nothing other than comment on the actual words that you posted. My post did not address what you meant by your post because I am not a mind reader. I took your post completely at face value and made no attempt to comment on anything you may or may not believe. I merely discussed the two sentences in question.

 

Finally, if you do not wish people to take your posts at face value, I suggest that you give them a hard read before posting them to the forums to ensure that your posts communicate the ideas that you intend for them to communicate.

Surely you could stop mischaracterizing my words, but you haven't. I'm not being rude in the least, I'm pointing out what happens. If the truth hurts, change your approach!

 

You posted "your version" of what I said...far from the actual words I said, keep that clear! You say you're not a mind reader, but you sure do a good job of trying to read more into what's said than what is...and like I said, you and Mushtang and another are the ones who do this continually (and I'm not the only one who notices this...am I??).

 

"How about from now on instead of merely posting that I 'say' things, you reference my actual posts?" Hey, these are words YOU should be living by, not suggesting to someone else! When you can do this, maybe you'll realize others do!!

I have no idea what you are going on about.

 

Again, I only discussed your actual words. Here's what you posted: "I can only assume from this that the GS PTB have yet to realize this and IA has to follow their guidelines. Sad, but that's likely the case!"

 

I didn't discuss anything other than those words. I made no inference to your underlying feelings or motivations. Your actual words were also cited. This differs from the times when you post that someone has 'said' something. Anyone who is concerned that this citation was altered or taken out of context can easily click on the link to see the actual post, in it's entirety.

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

"How about from now on instead of merely posting that I 'say' things, you reference my actual posts?" Hey, these are words YOU should be living by, not suggesting to someone else! When you can do this, maybe you'll realize others do!!

Instead of playing "I know you are but what am I?" in the thread, why don't you try to stay on topic?

 

I'm curious why you have the motorcycle warning on your avatar instead of a warning about electrical caches? You've insinuated in the past that people riding motorcycles are trained to ride safely and therefore aren't at risk, but then you go on to suggest that theres no way to remove the risk of electrocution at a transformer cache and therefore anyone searching for these is at a huge risk.

 

Your actions speak differently than your words do. If you really want people to think you're serious about your warnings, perhaps you should change the avatar to a green transformer and put electrical cache warnings on your sig line in place of the motorcycle warnings.

 

The answer is, the risk of being electrocuted at one of these caches exists, but it's a super small risk. The risk of being hurt while riding a motorcycle exists, and it's a high enough risk to be worthy of bringing attention to. Neither, however, are so risky that I refuse to do them. I'll happily ride my motorcycle (having passed a MSF course, and wearing protective gear) to a geocache that is hidden on a transformer, and I'll worry way more about getting hit by another driver than I will about getting shocked.

[+KBI]

The beauty of the plan is that as a finder you can decide which caches are worth finding and which aren't. Sort them out of your files however you wish, but remember that you can abort a cache hunt at any moment. If you get to ground zero and find that you aren't enjoying yourself, go do something else.

Last point before I simply ignore you...as most people know, MANY will NOT just walk away from a cache once there. MANY have the mentality of "if the hider placed it, it must be OK" and make illogical assumptions that some things are safer because the owner said so! Many think they HAVE to find the cache (evidenced by all those who methodically erradicate EVERY SINGLE CACHE from their area) So, when finding a cache like an electric box, they have been trained to assume that OTHER hides (which might only be NEAR an electric box or such equipment) are safe and start opening stuff they shouldn't (and normally wouldn't if not for the reward of a smiley)! We've all seen it done, we've all heard about it being done (sprinkler head cache...the ground was all torn up or someone else finds a sprinkler has been damaged, electric box had the door ripped open etc), yet you still try to say it doesn't happen??

 

I guess you'll champion these hides until someone gets hurt? I'd rather let people know of the dangers (because we all know some don't understand the dangers) than let them get hurt. Lastly, you guys feel it only right that those not smart enough learn the hard way...brilliant!! Too bad tht some of those "not smart enough" hapen to be kids...let them learn the hard way too??

It would appear here that you assume, as a premise, as a given, that a cache hunter is not responsible for any choices he makes during the conduct of a cache search. You seem to believe that once a cacher begins a cache hunt, anything bad that happens to that cacher during that cache hunt is someone else’s fault; that any cacher who experiences injury due to his decision to hunt a cache or due to the choices he makes during the search is not at all responsible for his own choices, but is, instead, an innocent victim of the cache hider.

 

You further imply that some cachers MUST search out ALL caches within a certain area; that they have NO free-will choice in the matter; and that the owners of caches within such unpublished areas are therefore 100% responsible for the safety of the members of this obsessive and completely non-accountable subset of cache seekers.

 

Is that right? Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

 

Please note that I have, as usual, been very careful here not to give you any rationale for claiming that your words have been 'twisted.' I am not presenting any alternate interpretation of your post as fact; I am only asking you to either confirm or deny that you indeed said what it sounds like you said.

 

In other words: I am not telling you what you meant. I am asking you what you meant.

 

So please enlighten me: Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

[+Rockin Roddy]

The beauty of the plan is that as a finder you can decide which caches are worth finding and which aren't. Sort them out of your files however you wish, but remember that you can abort a cache hunt at any moment. If you get to ground zero and find that you aren't enjoying yourself, go do something else.

Last point before I simply ignore you...as most people know, MANY will NOT just walk away from a cache once there. MANY have the mentality of "if the hider placed it, it must be OK" and make illogical assumptions that some things are safer because the owner said so! Many think they HAVE to find the cache (evidenced by all those who methodically erradicate EVERY SINGLE CACHE from their area) So, when finding a cache like an electric box, they have been trained to assume that OTHER hides (which might only be NEAR an electric box or such equipment) are safe and start opening stuff they shouldn't (and normally wouldn't if not for the reward of a smiley)! We've all seen it done, we've all heard about it being done (sprinkler head cache...the ground was all torn up or someone else finds a sprinkler has been damaged, electric box had the door ripped open etc), yet you still try to say it doesn't happen??

 

I guess you'll champion these hides until someone gets hurt? I'd rather let people know of the dangers (because we all know some don't understand the dangers) than let them get hurt. Lastly, you guys feel it only right that those not smart enough learn the hard way...brilliant!! Too bad tht some of those "not smart enough" hapen to be kids...let them learn the hard way too??

It would appear here that you assume, as a premise, as a given, that a cache hunter is not responsible for any choices he makes during the conduct of a cache search. You seem to believe that once a cacher begins a cache hunt, anything bad that happens to that cacher during that cache hunt is someone else’s fault; that any cacher who experiences injury due to his decision to hunt a cache or due to the choices he makes during the search is not at all responsible for his own choices, but is, instead, an innocent victim of the cache hider.

 

You further imply that some cachers MUST search out ALL caches within a certain area; that they have NO free-will choice in the matter; and that the owners of caches within such unpublished areas are therefore 100% responsible for the safety of the members of this obsessive and completely non-accountable subset of cache seekers.

 

Is that right? Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

 

Please note that I have, as usual, been very careful here not to give you any rationale for claiming that your words have been 'twisted.' I am not presenting any alternate interpretation of your post as fact; I am only asking you to either confirm or deny that you indeed said what it sounds like you said.

 

In other words: I am not telling you what you meant. I am asking you what you meant.

 

So please enlighten me: Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

 

In a word...NO!

 

I said some people are of the mindset that they feel the need to find EVERY cache within their area. This is evidenced by the fact that many have admitted this openly!

[+tozainamboku]

Last point before I simply ignore you...as most people know, MANY will NOT just walk away from a cache once there. MANY have the mentality of "if the hider placed it, it must be OK" and make illogical assumptions that some things are safer because the owner said so! Many think they HAVE to find the cache (evidenced by all those who methodically erradicate EVERY SINGLE CACHE from their area) So, when finding a cache like an electric box, they have been trained to assume that OTHER hides (which might only be NEAR an electric box or such equipment) are safe and start opening stuff they shouldn't (and normally wouldn't if not for the reward of a smiley)! We've all seen it done, we've all heard about it being done (sprinkler head cache...the ground was all torn up or someone else finds a sprinkler has been damaged, electric box had the door ripped open etc), yet you still try to say it doesn't happen??

 

I guess you'll champion these hides until someone gets hurt? I'd rather let people know of the dangers (because we all know some don't understand the dangers) than let them get hurt. Lastly, you guys feel it only right that those not smart enough learn the hard way...brilliant!! Too bad tht some of those "not smart enough" hapen to be kids...let them learn the hard way too??

Those who want to ban hides on electrical boxes or disguised to look like sprinkler heads always bring up this argument that people would tamper with or destroy public or private property rather than give up looking for a cache. If this statement is true we should ban all caches that are withing 30 ft of an electrical box, a sprinkler, or any other object that a foolish cacher may decide he needs to take apart to find the cache. By this argument all caches should be banned. After all we've all heard about the cacher that destroyed the forest looking for a micro hidden in the woods . I have never found a cache that required me to open an access panel on an electrical box or remove a real sprinkler head. Maybe someone has hidden one like this - but I am smart enough to know not to tamper with equipment I have no business tampering with. And as far as kid who are too young to know this - what are they doing caching without a parent around to tell them not to play with the electric box? Caches I have found tend to be fake electric equipment or sprinkler heads magnetically or otherwise attached to something. Generally an inspection quickly determines the item is not real. Sometimes I do have to touch to see if it can be removed easily. I wouldn't touch something if it looked dangerous. There are of course also many caches that are simply attached magnetically to real equipment. These are quite obvious and have never been in a location where I have felt concerned about removing the item. (Certainly there is a tiny risk of stray current but if I worried about that I wouldn't touch anything electric and I wouldn't ever cross the street). Of course there is a permission issue in some cases, utility companies concerned about tampering as well as the use of there property as a bill board often have a blanket rule against attaching anything to their equipment so perhaps one could use that as an argument against caches on real equipment.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Last point before I simply ignore you...as most people know, MANY will NOT just walk away from a cache once there. MANY have the mentality of "if the hider placed it, it must be OK" and make illogical assumptions that some things are safer because the owner said so! Many think they HAVE to find the cache (evidenced by all those who methodically erradicate EVERY SINGLE CACHE from their area) So, when finding a cache like an electric box, they have been trained to assume that OTHER hides (which might only be NEAR an electric box or such equipment) are safe and start opening stuff they shouldn't (and normally wouldn't if not for the reward of a smiley)! We've all seen it done, we've all heard about it being done (sprinkler head cache...the ground was all torn up or someone else finds a sprinkler has been damaged, electric box had the door ripped open etc), yet you still try to say it doesn't happen??

 

I guess you'll champion these hides until someone gets hurt? I'd rather let people know of the dangers (because we all know some don't understand the dangers) than let them get hurt. Lastly, you guys feel it only right that those not smart enough learn the hard way...brilliant!! Too bad tht some of those "not smart enough" hapen to be kids...let them learn the hard way too??

Those who want to ban hides on electrical boxes or disguised to look like sprinkler heads always bring up this argument that people would tamper with or destroy public or private property rather than give up looking for a cache. If this statement is true we should ban all caches that are withing 30 ft of an electrical box, a sprinkler, or any other object that a foolish cacher may decide he needs to take apart to find the cache. By this argument all caches should be banned. After all we've all heard about the cacher that destroyed the forest looking for a micro hidden in the woods . I have never found a cache that required me to open an access panel on an electrical box or remove a real sprinkler head. Maybe someone has hidden one like this - but I am smart enough to know not to tamper with equipment I have no business tampering with. And as far as kid who are too young to know this - what are they doing caching without a parent around to tell them not to play with the electric box? Caches I have found tend to be fake electric equipment or sprinkler heads magnetically or otherwise attached to something. Generally an inspection quickly determines the item is not real. Sometimes I do have to touch to see if it can be removed easily. I wouldn't touch something if it looked dangerous. There are of course also many caches that are simply attached magnetically to real equipment. These are quite obvious and have never been in a location where I have felt concerned about removing the item. (Certainly there is a tiny risk of stray current but if I worried about that I wouldn't touch anything electric and I wouldn't ever cross the street). Of course there is a permission issue in some cases, utility companies concerned about tampering as well as the use of there property as a bill board often have a blanket rule against attaching anything to their equipment so perhaps one could use that as an argument against caches on real equipment.

 

Now, on the other hand, if there was an attribute for electric dangers, then we'd not need to worry near as much...but others have said they are against this. Strange to me since we have attributes for most other dangers including poisonous weeds. I don't think you understand my stance at all. I only want people to be EDUCATED that dangers could lurk, dangers some know nothing about. We educate them to the hidden (which most times aren't really hidden) poison weeds, the cliffs etc, but we'd allow them to go in and search an area where they could be eletrocuted.

 

Some say this would give the hide away....ouch! So instead of thinking safety, we want to "protect the wow factor"?? Some say putting this attribute up would maybe actually get people to look in things they wouldn't and shouldn't? Not if proper attribute use coupled with properly describing the hide was used! We tell people the cache is located on a cliff over a 1000' drop, why do we keep secret the ones which are in the fake electric box? Oh yeah, because it would ruin the "wow" factor?

[+KBI]

It would appear here that you assume, as a premise, as a given, that a cache hunter is not responsible for any choices he makes during the conduct of a cache search. You seem to believe that once a cacher begins a cache hunt, anything bad that happens to that cacher during that cache hunt is someone else’s fault; that any cacher who experiences injury due to his decision to hunt a cache or due to the choices he makes during the search is not at all responsible for his own choices, but is, instead, an innocent victim of the cache hider.

 

You further imply that some cachers MUST search out ALL caches within a certain area; that they have NO free-will choice in the matter; and that the owners of caches within such unpublished areas are therefore 100% responsible for the safety of the members of this obsessive and completely non-accountable subset of cache seekers.

 

Is that right? Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

In a word...NO!

Thank you for providing an unambiguous answer to my question. By doing so you have set a fine example for the many others who regrettably seem chronically reluctant.

 

I said some people are of the mindset that they feel the need to find EVERY cache within their area. This is evidenced by the fact that many have admitted this openly!

I agree with you. Some cachers do choose that mindset.

 

So based on your answer you would agree with me, then, that any cacher who injures himself as a result of adopting the mindset you describe is therefore the one who is responsible for his own injuries, NOT the cache owner?

 

Again: No twist. Just a question. Isn’t this nice when we can discuss the topic without obfuscation?

[+Rockin Roddy]

It would appear here that you assume, as a premise, as a given, that a cache hunter is not responsible for any choices he makes during the conduct of a cache search. You seem to believe that once a cacher begins a cache hunt, anything bad that happens to that cacher during that cache hunt is someone else’s fault; that any cacher who experiences injury due to his decision to hunt a cache or due to the choices he makes during the search is not at all responsible for his own choices, but is, instead, an innocent victim of the cache hider.

 

You further imply that some cachers MUST search out ALL caches within a certain area; that they have NO free-will choice in the matter; and that the owners of caches within such unpublished areas are therefore 100% responsible for the safety of the members of this obsessive and completely non-accountable subset of cache seekers.

 

Is that right? Did I correctly understand the meaning of your post?

In a word...NO!

Thank you for providing an unambiguous answer to my question. By doing so you have set a fine example for the many others who regrettably seem chronically reluctant.

 

I said some people are of the mindset that they feel the need to find EVERY cache within their area. This is evidenced by the fact that many have admitted this openly!

I agree with you. Some cachers do choose that mindset.

 

So based on your answer you would agree with me, then, that any cacher who injures himself as a result of adopting the mindset you describe is therefore the one who is responsible for his own injuries, NOT the cache owner?

 

Again: No twist. Just a question. Isn’t this nice when we can discuss the topic without obfuscation?

 

Again, NO. Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

 

BTW...words as big as that obsfucation thing go over my head, but I take that to mean without twisting and mischaracterizing?? At any rate, it is good to DISCUSS a topic without the constant badgering, misleading statements, out and out mischaracterizations and the feeling of being bullied!! I love to discuss, I love being polite and having a pleasant conversation...wish it could always be like that!

Edited January 5, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+TrailGators]

So based on your answer you would agree with me, then, that any cacher who injures himself as a result of adopting the mindset you describe is therefore the one who is responsible for his own injuries, NOT the cache owner?

 

Again: No twist. Just a question. Isn't this nice when we can discuss the topic without obfuscation?

 

Again, NO. Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

 

BTW...words as big as that obsfucation thing go over my head, but I take that to mean without twisting and mischaracterizing?? At any rate, it is good to DISCUSS a topic without the constant badgering, misleading statements, out and out mischaracterizations and the feeling of being bullied!! I love to discuss, I love being polite and having a pleasant conversation...wish it could always be like that!

This argument is dealing with negligence. So there could be examples that go both ways. Generally people search for caches in good faith that the owner has done due diligence. Of course, saying that I have avoided finding many caches because I perceived them to be poor choices. Those poor choices can give the game a black eye as well as leading the unsuspecting people into predicaments. So they are bad ideas. I'm not a lawyer, but I think negligence hinges on how obvious the perceived danger would have been to the average person.

Edited January 5, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

I disagree totally. If your brakes are out, there's a 100% chance he's going to have trouble with the drive. It's more like you lend him your car without telling him that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance the brakes could fail (or whatever the actual number is) while he's got it.

 

Do you warn someone of every risk they face with every possible failure on the car, or do you realize that they know full well what the risks are? They're probably more worried about the high risk of getting hit by another driver instead of the low risk of the brakes failing, even though both are possible.

 

BTW, during my lunch hour just now I found a magnetic hide a key on one of those big green transformers. Surprisingly I lived to tell the tale.

[+KBI]

So based on your answer you would agree with me, then, that any cacher who injures himself as a result of adopting the mindset you describe is therefore the one who is responsible for his own injuries, NOT the cache owner?

Again, NO. Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

You are again confusing unintended reasonable risk with premeditated intentional harm.

 

As I stated in the previous thread (the one that got locked when someone challenged someone else's right to post):

 

EVERY caching experience presents hazards. Injury and death are ALWAYS possible with EVERY cache.

 

If the hazard is intentional, then the hider has by definition placed a booby trap, and that malicious hider is therefore very likely in violation of the Terms of Service ... and the law. A hide like that is a very bad thing.

 

If the hazard is unintentional – in other words, if it is incidental to the hunt and exists solely as a known, reasonably unanticipated yet possible risk (as in the case of an electrical transformer box) – then it is the responsibility of the cache seeker to decide how (or whether) to proceed. Such risks exist with ALL hides, not just the ones on electrical boxes.

 

If I know a particular electrical box is faulty to the degree that it presents a certain and deadly hazard, then it would be criminally irresponsible of me to hide a cache on it. Same as if I were to place a bomb inside an ammocan rigged to go off upon opening. Same is if I loan you a car with no brakes without telling you.

 

If, on the other hand, I have no specific knowledge of any specific fault of the specific electrical box, then it would be very reasonable of me to conclude that the risk of shock is extremely low. Thousands of times lower than, say, many of the other common activities listed in that now locked thread. According to those authoritative statistics one is thousands of times more likely to die of falling down at the cache site, being hit by a car while standing at the cache site, being poisoned while at the cache site, being shot at while at the cache site, or even driving to the cache site in a car with brakes which are maintained in the typical and expected fashion.

 

If I loan you a car that I know contains a hidden and deadly hazard but I choose NOT to inform you of the hazard, then I have placed you in a booby trap.

 

If I loan you a car without either of us having any reason to believe that the brakes are anything other than normal and functional, then I have committed no crime – and, as usual, you drive the car at your own risk, preferably after considering the likelihood that the brakes (or any other safety feature) in a typically-maintained car will fail.

 

See the difference?

Edited January 5, 2009 by KBI

[+Rockin Roddy]

Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

I disagree totally. If your brakes are out, there's a 100% chance he's going to have trouble with the drive. It's more like you lend him your car without telling him that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance the brakes could fail (or whatever the actual number is) while he's got it.

 

Do you warn someone of every risk they face with every possible failure on the car, or do you realize that they know full well what the risks are? They're probably more worried about the high risk of getting hit by another driver instead of the low risk of the brakes failing, even though both are possible.

 

BTW, during my lunch hour just now I found a magnetic hide a key on one of those big green transformers. Surprisingly I lived to tell the tale.

 

Please, let us know if you find one that is dangerous!!

 

You don't seem to understand that the person rummaging through an electric box, searching on a transformer etc WOULDN'T if not for the hidden cache. By doing so (hiding a cache in these), you are asking the searcher to look in places, do things they likely wouldn't ever do had it not been for the cache!

 

I think yu understood my example...by not telling of the dangers, you can be held responsible. It's happened many times, many a lawyer has lined their pockets with just such cases!

[+Rockin Roddy]

So based on your answer you would agree with me, then, that any cacher who injures himself as a result of adopting the mindset you describe is therefore the one who is responsible for his own injuries, NOT the cache owner?

Again, NO. Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

You are again confusing unintended reasonable risk with premeditated intentional harm.

 

As I stated in the previous thread (the one that got locked when someone challenged someone else's right to post):

 

EVERY caching experience presents hazards. Injury and death are ALWAYS possible with EVERY cache.

 

If the hazard is intentional, then the hider has by definition placed a booby trap, and that malicious hider is therefore very likely in violation of the Terms of Service ... and the law. A hide like that is a very bad thing.

 

If the hazard is unintentional – in other words, if it is incidental to the hunt and exists solely as a known, reasonably unanticipated yet possible risk (as in the case of an electrical transformer box) – then it is the responsibility of the cache seeker to decide how (or whether) to proceed. Such risks exist with ALL hides, not just the ones on electrical boxes.

 

If I know a particular electrical box is faulty to the degree that it presents a certain and deadly hazard, then it would be criminally irresponsible of me to hide a cache on it. Same as if I were to place a bomb inside an ammocan rigged to go off upon opening. Same is if I loan you a car with no brakes without telling you.

 

If, on the other hand, I have no specific knowledge of any specific fault of the specific electrical box, then it would be very reasonable of me to conclude that the risk of shock is extremely low. Thousands of times lower than, say, many of the other common activities listed in that now locked thread. According to those authoritative statistics one is thousands of times more likely to die of falling down at the cache site, being hit by a car while standing at the cache site, being poisoned while at the cache site, being shot at while at the cache site, or even driving to the cache site in a car with brakes which are maintained in the typical and expected fashion.

 

If I loan you a car that I know contains a hidden and deadly hazard but I choose NOT to inform you of the hazard, then I have placed you in a booby trap.

 

If I loan you a car without either of us having any reason to believe that the brakes are anything other than normal and functional, then I have committed no crime – and, as usual, you drive the car at your own risk, preferably after considering the likelihood that the brakes (or any other safety feature) in a typically-maintained car will fail.

 

See the difference?

 

I never challenged ANYONE'S right to post, I said they had no right to post that and I would ignore them. I also don't think that post closed the thread.

 

By placing a cache in a KNOWN hazard, you are in effect inviting someone to "take a chance"!

 

Ooops, a new GPS is waiting for me, I must make my eave now!! Carry on!!

[+KBI]

I never challenged ANYONE'S right to post, I said they had no right to post that and I would ignore them.

Well, that clears THAT up.

[+KBI]

See the difference?

By placing a cache in a KNOWN hazard, you are in effect inviting someone to "take a chance"!

It is obvious from your response that you did not read the post you responded to.

[Mushtang]

Thinkof it like this...I let you use my car knowing full well my brakes are out. You drive off without a hint of the brakes being bad, try to stop and end up in an accident...are you to blame for this?? Or am I??

I disagree totally. If your brakes are out, there's a 100% chance he's going to have trouble with the drive. It's more like you lend him your car without telling him that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance the brakes could fail (or whatever the actual number is) while he's got it.

 

Do you warn someone of every risk they face with every possible failure on the car, or do you realize that they know full well what the risks are? They're probably more worried about the high risk of getting hit by another driver instead of the low risk of the brakes failing, even though both are possible.

 

BTW, during my lunch hour just now I found a magnetic hide a key on one of those big green transformers. Surprisingly I lived to tell the tale.

Please, let us know if you find one that is dangerous!!

Absolutely! If I walk up to one and see the previous cacher's dead body still stuck to it, I'll start a new thread about it. If I happen to be the dead cacher, hopefully someone will let you good people know what happened to me.

 

You don't seem to understand that the person rummaging through an electric box, searching on a transformer etc WOULDN'T if not for the hidden cache.

I actually do understand that. It's an additional risk I'm taking on that I wouldn't have done if not for that cache. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

By doing so (hiding a cache in these), you are asking the searcher to look in places, do things they likely wouldn't ever do had it not been for the cache!

But do you also understand that electrocution by faulty transformer wasn't the ONLY risk I took because of that one cache? If not for that cache, I wouldn't have driven over there (risking auto accident, brake failure, etc), I wouldn't have walked in a wet parking lot (risking slipping and falling), I wouldn't have been outside during the lunch hour (risking catching cold because of the weather), etc. Of all the risks I did take, I'd rank the risk of electrocution WAY down on the list of stuff to worry about since it was such a small risk.

 

I think yu understood my example...by not telling of the dangers, you can be held responsible. It's happened many times, many a lawyer has lined their pockets with just such cases!

And I would hope that you would have understood my reply, that there's no way you can tell everyone of every danger. So which ones do you tell them about, and which ones do you ignore? I'd think you should tell them about the risks that have a high likelyhood of being a problem (the cache is hidden on a 1000' cliff, the brakes in my car are out, there is poison ivy near this cache) and at some point ignore the things that are not at all likely to happen (there's a slight grade at this cache so be sure you don't turn your ankle, be careful you don't get hit by a meteor while you're at this cache, be aware that brakes on a car are not perfect and may go out for some unexpected reason, this cache is on a transformer that has some high voltage lines inside).

[CoyoteRed]

You don't seem to understand that the person rummaging through an electric box, searching on a transformer etc WOULDN'T if not for the hidden cache. By doing so (hiding a cache in these), you are asking the searcher to look in places, do things they likely wouldn't ever do had it not been for the cache!

 

There's a lot of danger out there in the geocaching world. Climbing trees. Jumping from boulder to boulder. Rappelling down a cliff face. Etc. etc.

 

One difference between a cache up a tree and one on a piece of electrical gear, for me anyway, is I don't go around sticking my fingers in electrical boxes for giggles. I would climb a tree, jump boulders, or rappel a cliff for giggles, though--no cache needed.

 

I wonder, then, why would anyone want to hide or find a cache on a piece of electrical gear when there is no other reason for the hide but the hide itself. I disagree with doing away with the fake electrical box hide as I disagree with the legitimacy of hiding a cache in or on a live electrical box.

[+sbell111]

... You don't seem to understand that the person rummaging through an electric box, searching on a transformer etc WOULDN'T if not for the hidden cache. By doing so (hiding a cache in these), you are asking the searcher to look in places, do things they likely wouldn't ever do had it not been for the cache!

 

I think yu understood my example...by not telling of the dangers, you can be held responsible. It's happened many times, many a lawyer has lined their pockets with just such cases!

If I understand your post, you are arguing that one should not place a cache in the area of electricity because someone might tamper with the electrical object and get fried. You are further arguing that owning such a cache in the area of an electrical object would be negligence as it would entice people to search the electrified item at their peril.

 

Is this really your position?

 

If so, what about the cache that is hidden 50 feet away in a bush, but the searcher is using a poorly performing GPS and ends up in the area of an electrified item? What about the searcher of a cache that is actually 1/4 mile away, but the individual is searching in the wrong area?

 

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+KBI]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

[+TrailGators]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

[+markandsandy]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

[Ann_Brush]

There is a BIG difference between putting a magnetic micro on an electrical transformer and placing it on the transformer ENCLOSURE. The latter being the big green / grey steel box deal which is so handy to place the micro on the outside of. The transformer is housed inside the steel box so you cant tamper with it. The steel box is not part of the transformer its the ENCLOSURE.

[+KBI]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

Fact is, Sbell asked a trick question: Responsibility for the cache seeker's actions ALWAYS rest with the seeker, NEVER with the hider.*

 

There is no transfer; the question was sarcastically misleading, same as my answer. I understood his point perfectly.

 

 

* (... unless the hider creates an intentionally dangerous trap that is, in which case the hider is guilty of a crime. But that isn’t what is being debated here. I haven’t read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone here has come out in favor of lethal booby traps – despite RR’s implications otherwise.)

[+Roarmeister]

I received an interesting post on my blog yesterday from a cacher who did not think placing a cache so close to an electrical box was such a good idea. I can completely see his point to a degree but on the other hand did not think of it as a major deal. There have in the past been other forum posts where people have voiced displeasure of using electrical boxes and such (real or fake) as cache hosts in any way.

 

Geocaching Electrical Safety (3 pages)

Electrical Boxes as containers

Electrical Box Caches (2 pages)

 

My question to you is what do you feel is not acceptable as a cache hide and why? Maybe we can see some patterns of what people really do not like to look for when caching.

***Note this discussion does not have to partain to just electrical hosts...

-HHH

 

I've always hated geocaches hidden near or on electrical equipment. I dislike them because of safety as well as legal issues.

I hate caches hidden on Playground equipment. Why would you want to bring adults to a park, to snoop around playground equipment, all the while they are watched and confronted by suspicious parents.

I can't stand caches hidden underneath lampposts, in the middle of parking lots. These caches have no redeeming value to me.

I can't stand caches where the cache hider insists on sharing the "local bum outhouse" or the illegal trash dumping site.

I can't stand caches hidden in "full view" of businesses and house, where the people with a view of the cache know nothing about the cache.

 

I 2nd/3rd/or whatever on the electrical equipment - I see no reason to simulate electrical caches or to hide them in or on electrical transformers, etc. Surely there are better areas to place caches in an urban environment. I once chided someone from putting a cache on a 25 KVa pad-mounted transformer. Although they are usually locked, an unknowing person might search them too closely and if the transformer has a electrical leak or fault the person could be seriously injured or killed.

 

Lampost caches (LPCs) are usually under the skirts where there are no wires however once in a while somebody will open the access cover and place a magnetic in the light standard itself where the wiring is. This is VERY BAD. At my first 2 or 3 LPCs I thought, gee that was a clever idea but now I consider them to be cheap enterainment for unimagintive lackluster hiders. Unfortunately, to swallow my own medicine I should remove one of my own early placements!!!

 

Caches on playground equipment can be reached during off hours so it doesn't bother me that much. BUT, for a middle aged man like myself to even be seen hovering around playgrounds gives ME the willys because somebody will always jump to the conclusion that type of person is up to no-good.

 

Caches in full view need extra attention to avoid showing others the cache location. Best to not look suspcious but just act like you know exactly what you are doing and don't try to be covert. It is the "covertness" that attracts peoples attention more than anything else!!!

[+TrailGators]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

[Mushtang]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

[+TrailGators]

* (... unless the hider creates an intentionally dangerous trap that is, in which case the hider is guilty of a crime. But that isn't what is being debated here. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone here has come out in favor of lethal booby traps – despite RR's implications otherwise.)

I don't think anyone is favor of hiding caches that could lead to an injury no matter who is found to be at fault.

 

Your key word was "intention", but proving negligence doesn't rely on proving intention. Like I said before we would need to bring up a specific case to really get into this. This is where the law becomes interesting because it is not black and white. It is case dependent.

[+TrailGators]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

So spending hours in a police station being interrogated like a terrorist isn't harm? Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt? I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white. Edited January 5, 2009 by TrailGators

[+markandsandy]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

[Mushtang]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

Yup. That's what I said. We agree.

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

I would argue that they are the responsibility of the society, as a whole.

[+TrailGators]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

Honestly, you are getting further and further from the point of the thread, in my opinion, and certainly far from the topic of the posts that you quoted.

 

To put it as simply as possible, bomb scares are caused by terrorists who place real bombs. It is the placement of real bombs that requires vigilence by both the public (in keeping a look out for things that seem off) and law enforcement (in ensuring that any item that might possibly maybe be a bomb is 'made safe'). Non-explosive objects placed without the intention of causing a bomb scare are not to blame for bomb scares.

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

ANY lawyer worth hiring could get around that within seconds...I'm betting we all know that perfectly well!

[Mushtang]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

So spending hours in a police station being interrogated like a terrorist isn't harm?

Who is being interrogated?

Is it the hider? If so, then the hider hasn't harmed a cacher, only brought trouble on himself for a hide that could be mistaken for a bomb.

Is it the seeker? If so, the seeker assumed the risk in seeking the cache, and could have walked away when they realized the cache was hidden in a place that could be mistaken for a bomb. I would walk away from a cache hidden under a bridge, or in front of a federal building without taking the risk myself. If I'm arrested for a bomb scare while seeking a cache in some seemingly innocent location, then I assumed the risk when I went to look for it.

 

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

 

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I said some people are of the mindset that they feel the need to find EVERY cache within their area. This is evidenced by the fact that many have admitted this openly!

That doesn't sound like a problem.

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

ANY lawyer worth hiring could get around that within seconds...I'm betting we all know that perfectly well!

That's not true. Certainly, a judge could take a nice broad view of that statement and throw any lawsuit out.

 

"Let's see Mr. Roddy. You clearly were advised that you were responsibly for any risk associated with looking for a cache. You accepted these risks and decided to go forward in playing your little game. In doing so, you got injured. Now you are trying to sue for damages? I think not."

 

He would then go on to lecture you and your attorney about bringing fivilous lawsuits.

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

ANY lawyer worth hiring could get around that within seconds...I'm betting we all know that perfectly well!

[+TrailGators]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

H0nestly, you are getting further and further from the point of the thread, in my opinion.

 

To put it as simply as possible, bomb scares are caused by terrorists who place real bombs. It is the placement of real bombs that requires vigilence by both the public (in keeping a look out for things that seem off) and law enforcement (in ensuring that any item that might possibly maybe be a bomb is 'made safe'). Non-explosive objects placed without the intention of causing a bomb scare are not to blame for bomb scares.

You might want to read the guidelines. Anyhow, my entire point is that we are debating a gray area without any specifics. It really depends on each case as to whether or not the hider bears any responsibility. I don't think anyone can make a blanket statement. I also think that if the cache violates the guidelines then the hider really opens himself up. I do agree that seekers need to be smart, but sometimes there can be pitfalls that are not obvious. If someone was really electrocuted my bet is that the owner of the device that electrocuted the person would be responsible. This is why the device owner would never give permission to place caches on electrical devices. Edited January 5, 2009 by TrailGators

[+Rockin Roddy]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

Honestly, you are getting further and further from the point of the thread, in my opinion, and certainly far from the topic of the posts that you quoted.

 

To put it as simply as possible, bomb scares are caused by terrorists who place real bombs. It is the placement of real bombs that requires vigilence by both the public (in keeping a look out for things that seem off) and law enforcement (in ensuring that any item that might possibly maybe be a bomb is 'made safe'). Non-explosive objects placed without the intention of causing a bomb scare are not to blame for bomb scares.

 

I'll be sure to tell 007BigD that!!

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

So spending hours in a police station being interrogated like a terrorist isn't harm?

Who is being interrogated?

Is it the hider? If so, then the hider hasn't harmed a cacher, only brought trouble on himself for a hide that could be mistaken for a bomb.

Is it the seeker? If so, the seeker assumed the risk in seeking the cache, and could have walked away when they realized the cache was hidden in a place that could be mistaken for a bomb. I would walk away from a cache hidden under a bridge, or in front of a federal building without taking the risk myself. If I'm arrested for a bomb scare while seeking a cache in some seemingly innocent location, then I assumed the risk when I went to look for it.

 

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

 

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

 

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

Honestly, you are getting further and further from the point of the thread, in my opinion, and certainly far from the topic of the posts that you quoted.

 

To put it as simply as possible, bomb scares are caused by terrorists who place real bombs. It is the placement of real bombs that requires vigilence by both the public (in keeping a look out for things that seem off) and law enforcement (in ensuring that any item that might possibly maybe be a bomb is 'made safe'). Non-explosive objects placed without the intention of causing a bomb scare are not to blame for bomb scares.

 

I'll be sure to tell 007BigD that!!

Since I have no idea who 007BigD is or what your point is (nor do I care), you probably should go ahead and tell him (her?).

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Unkle Fester]

Man, take a couple days of from the forums and even the Zombie Army refuses to enter this fray. Where's my popcorn?

 

Anyway, a cache I get the FTF on is acceptable, one where I get up at three AM and someone beats me to it is simply unacceptable.

 

Oh, there it is....

[+Renegade Knight]

...A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

A person observing a person seeking the cache is the one to trigger the scare if they call it in and if the authorities decide to respond with that mindset. My cache was called in as a drug stash and that reponse was completely different. We don't need to pin the blame, but it helps to remember the real process.

 

As for the cache "clearly violating" lets assume that it actually does instead of merley being presumed to do so. If the finder chooses to seek a cache knowing this. It's their own dadgum fault. Fortunatly most guideline violations are actually no big deal in the real world.

 

In the past couple of months I have dug a hole, stood on RR Right of way, trapsed around private property, been within 528' of a cache, oh, and my personal favorite I had an agenda once or twice.

 

We manage to get by in the world using what little common sence and wisdom we have. Caches don't change this.

[+sbell111]

At what point does responsibility for the cache seeker's actions transfer from the hider to the seeker?

<raises hand> OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer to that one!

 

When the seeker either (1) chooses to read the disclaimer, or (2) chooses NOT to read the disclaimer.

 

That was easy. Gimme another one!

The disclaimer only frees Groundspeak from legal responsibility. It doesn't free the hider or the seeker.

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

I don't think that phrase frees the hider. It is a fact that hiders have been fined for poor cache placements (bomb scares).

You're not even talking about the same thing. Caches that have been causes of bomb scares, where the hider was fined for wasting the bomb squad's time, didn't cause any harm to a cacher.

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

The original question quoted above had to do with responsibility for the cache seeker's actions . Bomb scares have nothing to do with seeking a cache, so I would not expect those risks to be the responsibility of the seeker. Clearly they are the responsibility of the hider.

A person seeking a cache can trigger a bomb scare. What if the seeker knew that the cache clearly violated the guidelines and he still decided to seek it?

Honestly, you are getting further and further from the point of the thread, in my opinion.

 

To put it as simply as possible, bomb scares are caused by terrorists who place real bombs. It is the placement of real bombs that requires vigilence by both the public (in keeping a look out for things that seem off) and law enforcement (in ensuring that any item that might possibly maybe be a bomb is 'made safe'). Non-explosive objects placed without the intention of causing a bomb scare are not to blame for bomb scares.

You might want to read the guidelines. Anyhow, my entire point is that we are debating a gray area without any specifics. It really depends on each case as to whether or not the hider bears any responsibility. I don't think anyone can make a blanket statement. I also think that if the cache violates the guidelines then the hider really opens himself up. I do agree that seekers need to be smart, but sometimes there can be pitfalls that are not obvious. If someone was really electrocuted my bet is that the owner of the device that electrocuted the person would be responsible. This is why the device owner would never give permission to place caches on electrical devices.

Honestly, I've tried and I can't get a grasp on your point.

 

Your original question appears to be: 'Is a cache seeker responsible if he/she chose to seek a cache that he/she knew violated the guidelines'. The answer is obvious. The seeker is responsible for his own actions regardless of whether the cache met the current guidelines, or not. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for his/her actions.

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Since I have no idea who 007BigD is or what your point is (nor do I care), you probably should go ahead and tell him (her?).

 

007BigD is the person who is being held responsible (financially) for the bomb scare that was discussed in another thread. He is the one being made to pay for CalTrans...