Jump to content

Muggle This !


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :):ph34r::laughing::anibad:

Link to comment

 

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

 

My own, first observation is Deci acted at the request of the cache owner, and was very clear it was an extremely unusual step:

 

"As this Archived cache has become a sounding board for a discussion best done either in person or by email, at the request of the owner to stop this happening I am taking the extremely unusual step of Locking this cache."

Link to comment

 

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

 

My own, first observation is Deci acted at the request of the cache owner, and was very clear it was an extremely unusual step:

 

"As this Archived cache has become a sounding board for a discussion best done either in person or by email, at the request of the owner to stop this happening I am taking the extremely unusual step of Locking this cache."

 

I suspect that Andy's observations were directed more at the archiving than the locking of the cache - Deci's action seems right and proper (although very unusual, as he says!) and hasn't really changed anything.

 

As to the archiving, I have a deal of sympathy for JerryO. I strongly suspect this isn't the first case of an inappropriate retrieval, and I for one wouldn't want someone's death on my conscience, irrespective of where the 'guilt' lies.

 

I myself have tested my abilities somewhat when caching (funnily enough, Eckington Towers - named after some bloke I believe :ph34r: ) and wouldn't dream of holding the setter at fault if I injured myself. However, I like to think that if I had slipped and fallen from near the top of Ecky Towers, (which doesn't require specialist equipment) that you might consider archiving it anyway.

 

Plenty of publicity for your cache there Nutter!

Link to comment

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :D:ph34r::laughing::anibad:

 

Yo!

 

Deceangi locked the cache at my request because someone who refused to log it properly and according to the stipulations on the page kept communicating to me via the page in response to my emails and this was in danger of becoming abusive. I can see what you mean about individuals making up their own minds about how to retrieve a cache and I agree to a large extent; however, I imagine that some of your extreme caches that require, say climbing equipment, can only be done by someone with said equipment and the concomitant knowledge of how to use it. I freely admit that I made a mistake in placing my cache, and that it could be acquired by someone prepared to take unnecessary risks didn’t cross my mind – although I tried it myself to see if it were possible. No, I decided, you’d have to be an idiot to attempt it. That’s why I added the logging requirements, which it turns out have made no difference to some.

 

I wrote on the cache page, “The sort of person, in my experience of people, who blatantly ignores instructions and caveats is also the sort of person who would, in the event of a catastrophe, make haste to their favourite litigious boutique to see what damage they could do. I am aware of a caching situation several months ago where someone attempted to take legal action against a setter. I am also aware that it led to nought. That’s all very well, but I for one don’t want to explore the inside of a courtroom or scan the tortuous contents of a solicitor's letter, no matter that the outcome would be almost predetermined in my favour. For a plastic box? ‘Taint worth it”.

 

No matter that there are all sorts of disclaimers both written and implied in this hobby, all it takes is an error on someone’s part (i.e. mine in this case) and away I am up before the beak and all that entails. It really isn’t worth it.

 

I intend to set some arduous caches in the region but I have learned a valuable lesson. If someone needs to climb an 18m 6c or a 120 metre chimney to get the cache, then I’ll make sure that that’s the only way they’re going to get to it. That should actually make it safer as it would only be attempted by people with the required ability.

 

“Muggle This!” was originally an underwater cache, with only one way of retrieval. I should perhaps have archived it then after the deluge that removed it rather than trying to preserve a challenging cache in the vicinity.

 

Also, the bottom line: my cache, up to me. :):D

Link to comment

Interesting read this. Last week I got some emails about a cache of mine a lady had done, and found highly dangerous as she'd have to cross several metres of- wait for it- woodland in the dark to reach it. Off paths, over a few fallen tree bits and grass and everything... I said it was probably not the cache for her if she didn't feel confident, and that caching with a friend is safer in almost every situation, in case of incident. Gawd alone knows what she'd have done if she'd have actually tripped and fallen while finding it.

 

Anyway, the above does highlight genuinely risky caches and the ability of a mercifully small number of people (thanks to the ol' Darwinian Selection?) to ignore every warning, and the primal part of the human brain that should be screaming 'Don't do that, it's dangerous!' to put themselves boldly into significantly hazardous situations. I wouldn't want them all closed down, but given the posts on the one in question, I think jerryo has done the right thing, for the right reasons. Also, as he says, it's his cache, he can do as he likes (within GC.com guidelines) with it.

 

Some of the cache events I've held could hardly be called low risk- I think I'll need to use more strongly worded warnings on them in future, to cover myself. Something like 'If you break your legs while attending this event cache, don't come running to me!' :ph34r:

Link to comment

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :):ph34r::laughing::anibad:

 

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

Link to comment

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

I find that if I want to know what is involved in acquiring a cache that reading the page is usually useful. That tends to be why people write them. There you will find all of the information and attributes (under the word "attributes") pertaining to the cache. :ph34r:

Are you seriously saying that you attempted to find a puzzle cache by merely visiting the coordinates on the page without ever reading the page itself?

Link to comment

 

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

 

Well having looked at the cache page it would be pretty much impossible to do find this cache without having read the cache page first (unless you habitually walk round with a ladder or set of ropes in your caching bag), in which case any finder should have read about the logging requirements and safety warnings.

Link to comment

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :D:ph34r::laughing::anibad:

 

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

 

maybe this is just a purely a matter of resposibility - if the setter was resposible enough to put warnings on the page the person going after the cache should be resposible enough to take note the warnings and any instructions and/or requirements - to go after a cache without doing homework and knowing what the cache involves and what is required to log the cache is irrisponsible - I won't attempt a cache without having a good idea of what to expect :)

Link to comment

I don't think it was a mistake for you to set the "Muggle This Cache" Jeremy it was a really good cache and I don't think it should have been archived either :laughing:

 

I do think The Spokes log was rightfully deleted, not only did they not retrieve the cache the correct way but they did not take photographic evidence of them doing the cache as asked for on a page.

 

There are many caches that ask you to do a specfic thing, wearing a daft mask, taking a photograph being an animal, logging the cache in rhyme, getting dressed up all come to mind of caches we have done.

 

If the cache setter ask you to do a specific task and you dont do that task then you have not completed the cache.

 

The cache page for Muggle This clearly states you want a photograph of the person/equipment doing the cache this was not provided so the cache was not done to your requirements, so delete the log.

 

We did not have the special equipment that was required to do the cache but it also says on the page you will meet up with anyone and do the cache for them to show them how to do it safely/properly, anyone could have emailed you and made arrangements with you and done it that way too.

 

My 7p's worth (the credit crunch :ph34r: )

Edited by Us 4 and Jess
Link to comment

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :D:ph34r::laughing::anibad:

 

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

 

maybe this is just a purely a matter of resposibility - if the setter was resposible enough to put warnings on the page the person going after the cache should be resposible enough to take note the warnings and any instructions and/or requirements - to go after a cache without doing homework and knowing what the cache involves and what is required to log the cache is irrisponsible - I won't attempt a cache without having a good idea of what to expect :)

 

Please do not avoid the issue here how is an icon on a GPS unit giving anyone all this information.

An icon on a GPS is just an icon. Its a little chest on mine for all unfound caches, caches that we have found are open chests.

So can everyone honestly say that they have never looked for a cache that they have not looked up the details for. Has anyone ever spent 20 minutes looking for a cache only to get home to find it was a multi.

 

When you walk over the top of a cache you tend to be a bit curious.

We were down in York the other week and found a cache that was not planned but only a few feet from the walk we were on.

 

Muggle This was not like it was on the top of a mountain or in some inaccessible place, it was on a footpath bridge, on the way to another Cache.

We had printouts for three that day, Steely Dee, Nicky Nack and get it from H2O5 we passed close to another we did not have a print out for, but it was dark and did not bother to look.

My wife got his cache in less than a minute and with no danger at all. She is a good swimmer but would not even jump off a low diving board at the baths and never takes risks. She will only go up a ladder if there are two people holding it and its tied at the top.

If she got it it was easy for her and no danger, rest assured.

I could not however have got the cache without taking a lot of risks, I was too big to fit under the bottom railing and I would have had to use ropes and cargo straps that I had back in the car. I bet I would have ended up in horrible murk.

 

Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache.

So when setting a cache you have to be aware of this.

 

Just for the record The Spokes are not whining in any way that their log was deleted. We did it and did take a Photo and did notice that others had not uploaded photos so this was thought to be OK. If asked we would have uploaded the photo and if unacceptable we would have accepted the log as deleted and moved on. As you can see we are not a numbers team. We can take it.

Edited by The Spokes
Link to comment

Was really enjoying the log dialogue [especially as it has ramifications for a number of my 'extreme' caches]

and then decci gave it the chop and locked the cache from any new comments.

'Muggle this' a cache by Jerryo

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-77f2d781b982

I think this is a justified debate for a forum regarding how 'extreme' caches are obtained

 

Personally, I would expect individuals to make up ther own minds as to how they find a cache just as long as they sign the log themselves and not hand it down /up for others to sign ! as it ain't ethical !

I would expect them to read all disclaimers [including the GC.com one] before attempting the cache i.e attempt the cachee ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK !

Remember however no cache is worth dying for !!!!! :D:ph34r::laughing::anibad:

 

OK Please explain to the people who set these caches how they are to get this information onto an icon on a GPS.

I could set a cache that is very dangerous and set up the page that tells everyone in very large letters not to do this cache without fire fighting respirators, but this would not be of any use whatsoever if cacher downloaded the caches in bulk and was passing the cache and decided to do it.

 

How can you possibly impose restrictions unless there is a sign clearly stating them at the cache site.

 

maybe this is just a purely a matter of resposibility - if the setter was resposible enough to put warnings on the page the person going after the cache should be resposible enough to take note the warnings and any instructions and/or requirements - to go after a cache without doing homework and knowing what the cache involves and what is required to log the cache is irrisponsible - I won't attempt a cache without having a good idea of what to expect :D

 

Please do not avoid the issue here how is an icon on a GPS unit giving anyone all this information.

An icon on a GPS is just an icon. Its a little chest on mine for all unfound caches, caches that we have found are open chests.

So can everyone honestly say that they have never looked for a cache that they have not looked up the details for. Has anyone ever spent 20 minutes looking for a cache only to get home to find it was a multi.

 

When you walk over the top of a cache you tend to be a bit curious.

We were down in York the other week and found a cache that was not planned but only a few feet from the walk we were on.

 

Muggle This was not like it was on the top of a mountain or in some inaccessible place, it was on a footpath bridge, on the way to another Cache.

We had printouts for three that day, Steely Dee, Nicky Nack and get it from H2O5 we passed close to another we did not have a print out for, but it was dark and did not bother to look.

My wife got his cache in less than a minute and with no danger at all. She is a good swimmer but would not even jump off a low diving board at the baths and never takes risks. She will only go up a ladder if there are two people holding it and its tied at the top.

If she got it it was easy for her and no danger, rest assured.

I could not however have got the cache without taking a lot of risks, I was too big to fit under the bottom railing and I would have had to use ropes and cargo straps that I had back in the car. I bet I would have ended up in horrible murk.

 

Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache.

So when setting a cache you have to be aware of this.

 

Ok you got the cache pot into your hands, but you did not do it the way the cache setter asked for it to be done, if you had the cache page in your hands all the requirements for logging the cache were on that sheet, you did not use the correct equipment and you did not take a photograph so you did not complete the cache the way the setter wanted it to be completed.

 

So your log was deleted, end of....

 

And end of a perfectly good cache... :)

Link to comment

 

Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache.

So when setting a cache you have to be aware of this.

 

I think most folks have a rough idea of what they are letting themselves in for and have read some/most of the page.

 

Say you were walking near to Ben Nevis and you knew there was a cache up there would you think "oh theres a cache a little way up here we will just stroll up in our flip flops shorts and t-shirts"

 

I dont think so

Link to comment

 

Ok you got the cache pot into your hands, but you did not do it the way the cache setter asked for it to be done, if you had the cache page in your hands all the requirements for logging the cache were on that sheet, you did not use the correct equipment and you did not take a photograph so you did not complete the cache the way the setter wanted it to be completed.

 

So your log was deleted, end of....

 

And end of a perfectly good cache... :ph34r:

 

We had no idea what was required and we did take a photo as I stated, but did not upload it. Your log stood without one. We would have uploaded one later or if asked to.

 

OK then Log deleted as it states on the Cache page I agree.

But great delight it seemed, was taken in making it the end of a perfectly good cache at our expense instead.

We will carry on caching by the rules if the rules of the cache say our log is to be deleted so be it. We know we did it. But the rules did not say the cache would be archived and whoever did it the wrong way would be made a scapegoat for the cache being removed forever. I was not our fault, we found it by chance did it easy (which I suspect upset the apple cart a bit) and logged it. The response was OTT but that's up to the setter, but blaming us is not.

Link to comment

 

Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache.

So when setting a cache you have to be aware of this.

 

I think most folks have a rough idea of what they are letting themselves in for and have read some/most of the page.

 

Say you were walking near to Ben Nevis and you knew there was a cache up there would you think "oh theres a cache a little way up here we will just stroll up in our flip flops shorts and t-shirts"

 

I dont think so

 

A foot bridge on a footpath by the river Weir hardly constitutes Ben Nevis does it.

Link to comment

The Spokes quotes are in italics

 

Please do not avoid the issue here how is an icon on a GPS unit giving anyone all this information.

I wasn’t avoiding the issue. It’s not an issue unless you chose to make it one. Most cachers check out the cache page before they set off. I have never heard of anyone just setting off and looking for caches without any information. I mean, you could end up at a multi, a virtual, even a puzzle … Oh.

 

Has anyone ever spent 20 minutes looking for a cache only to get home to find it was a multi.

I have. But if I’d seen this one I wouldn’t have tried it without some rope at least. Or some thought.

 

My wife got his cache in less than a minute and with no danger at all.

She didn’t: she got it, but it was not really safe.

 

She is a good swimmer

That is irrelevant: no one can swim in mud, which is where she would have ended up – head first.

 

I could not however have got the cache without taking a lot of risks

You said it: you risked your wife.

 

Back to the point you cannot guarantee that people will read the cache page, it is not a requirement for looking for a cache.

That’s like downloading a list of hotels and staying in the first one you come to despite the fact that it’s five star and you find you can’t afford it the next day.

There is a hint here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx

 

Just for the record The Spokes are not whining in any way that their log was deleted.

Just out of interest, why do you often talk about yourself in the third person?

 

We did it and did take a Photo

That comes out now? I can’t believe that you didn’t read the cache page even after you’d found the cache and seen the criteria for logging. Especially with its being a puzzle.

 

But great delight it seemed, was taken in making it the end of a perfectly good cache at our expense instead.

There was no delight in this at all. Don’t flatter yourself. I’ve enjoyed this cache: I’ve visited it umpteen times (at least 8 and that’s more than it’s been found) in its various incarnations and I’ve enjoyed writing my little logs. I even became quite ill because of it. It had a few people watching it and some of them seemed entertained. I archived the cache at my expense and because of what you did.

 

we found it by chance did it easy (which I suspect upset the apple cart a bit)

Not at all. When I set it in the river, I was told by a reviewer to make it a 5/5, when I repositioned it, I left it as a 5/5 for a while, then I realised that it wasn’t actually that hard so I downgraded it to 4/4. It should actually have been a 2/4, but I never got around to it. So the difficulty is not an issue and it was easy, especially with the right equipment. Incidentally, had you had the right gear, you may have been able to replace the lid properly as it was half off when I got there the other day, and the fact that it was a tight fit in the clips wouldn’t have been a problem had you done it the way I intended. It says on the page: “If you can't put it back, don't try to get it, please.”

 

The response was OTT but that's up to the setter, but blaming us is not.

Think about it. I wasn’t actually blaming you at the start: I was going to leave your find intact. I decided that it was people like you that I wasn’t going to be responsible for, certainly if ever there were any claims for compensation. I deleted your logs after you started getting antsy with me, and, as it says on the cache page (if you’d read it), at my discretion. If you’d replied to my emails instead of replying via the cache page it might have helped. That made it one-sided in your favour, not that I care.

 

I find it rather amusing that in your logs you kept accusing me of “not being man enough” to leave your logs on the page, and the “manly thing to do” would be to have deleted the log. Manly? I’m not the one who encouraged a child under the safety railing of a bridge: “Laura who is 12 got underneath the bottom rail and said she could reach it.” You sent a child under the safety rail of a bridge? It says on the cache page that it is unsuitable for children, yet you tried it. Oh, I forget: you don’t read the pages.

 

A foot bridge on a footpath by the river Weir hardly constitutes Ben Nevis does it.

Nope. But under the footpath makes it a little more of a challenge.

Link to comment

From the Forum Guidelines:

 

"6. Private discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, we ask that you please use the Private Message feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general geocaching community."

 

I think this point has now been reached, so I am closing this Topic.

 

If the parties directly involved in this particular cache dialogue wish to continue it further, please do so as suggested in the guideline quoted above.

 

Thank you.

 

mandarin

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...