Jump to content

Premium Member Only caches are elitist!

smomofo

By smomofo
in General geocaching topics

Followers 12

Recommended Posts

The_Incredibles_

+The_Incredibles_

Posted
Posted

Can't believe this thread is still running. :laughing:

 

I'm going to add my 2 cents. I believe someone defined elitism way back, but it's worth repeating:

 

Elitism:

 

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

 

Yes, premium-members do get special treatment; they get pocket queries and notifications and special caches.

 

However, they are NOT getting this treatment because of their perceived superior intellect. Nor their perceived social status. Nor financial resources.

 

I'm going to get people arguing with me, but I believe premium membership is affordable for everyone who is willing to make it a priority. If it was $1000/year, I would think otherwise, but as it stands, everyone who can afford gas, rent, a GPS, can afford PM if they want to.

 

So, no I don't think it's elitist, as it is accesible to everyone.

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted
Elitism:

 

1. The belief that certain persons deserve favored treatment by virtue of their financial resources.

 

Yes, premium-members do get special treatment; they get pocket queries and notifications and special caches.

 

However, they are NOT getting this treatment because of their financial resources.

It's probably at that point that the loonier moonbats amongst us would argue. I've noticed that there is a small yet vocal minority amongst us who honestly believe that all things in life should be free. These kooks have some weird, deep seated hatred of corporations, (though they support places like Starbucks... Go figure), and see them as the ultimate evil. Any business charging more than is required to keep the lights on is labeled as "greedy capitalists". Though these types usually offer some amount of amusement, their ceaseless whining does grow tiresome after a while.

 

A common argument, (which you've refuted nicely), is the silliness that, if you can afford to spend $30 a year on a hobby, and they cannot, your premium membership entitles you to special treatment. Presumably, as a PM, you believe that you deserve these added benefits which you pay for. (So do I, but I'm playing Devil's Advocate) Obviously, (to them), your ability to afford something they cannot is a direct result of your financial resources, rather than simply the after effects of poor planning. Ergo, according to the wackiest members of society, you believe that you deserve favored treatment by virtue of your financial status.

 

Sorry Brother. These types of threads will continue to show up.

Posting a logical, well reasoned response won't stop them.

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

Why is it always assumed that a non-premium member is stealing caches?? It could be anybody or anybody using a PM's login.

It could be. But in my area they were coming up missing after the Groundspeak Weekly Newsletter came on on Thursdays. Since those that I am aquainted with and I started making them PM only, muggling I mean thefts have stopped. So figure it out. It's a non-premium member who is doing it. Besides it's just a nice pat on the back to those who support GS for providing a site where we can play our game from. Ya can't have it all for free.

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

Can't believe this thread is still running. :laughing:

 

I'm going to add my 2 cents. I believe someone defined elitism way back, but it's worth repeating:

 

Elitism:

 

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

 

Yes, premium-members do get special treatment; they get pocket queries and notifications and special caches.

 

However, they are NOT getting this treatment because of their perceived superior intellect. Nor their perceived social status. Nor financial resources.

 

I'm going to get people arguing with me, but I believe premium membership is affordable for everyone who is willing to make it a priority. If it was $1000/year, I would think otherwise, but as it stands, everyone who can afford gas, rent, a GPS, can afford PM if they want to.

 

So, no I don't think it's elitist, as it is accesible to everyone.

Couldn't agree more. Break it down and it's less than a dime per day. Actually it comes out at 8 cents per day.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

I'm curious how you dealt with it once the theif was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful.

Link to comment
7rxc

7rxc

Posted
Posted

I'm of the opinion that making a cache a medium to hard puzzle will protect it more than PMOC status. Not SEEING the cache page isn't much protection. But most of the time making a PMOC makes a traditional into a puzzle anyway.

Still findable and still logable. It's just a single layer. Making it some work to do is the real answer.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

I'm of the opinion that making a cache a medium to hard puzzle will protect it more than PMOC status. Not SEEING the cache page isn't much protection. But most of the time making a PMOC makes a traditional into a puzzle anyway.

Still findable and still logable. It's just a single layer. Making it some work to do is the real answer.

 

Doug 7rxc

Sure, that would probably work, but at the expense of putting your caches out of range of even more legitimate cachers, even PM ones that don't care to solve puzzle caches. Sounds elitist to me. :lol:

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful.

This is a little bit laterally off the subject, but I tracked down a couple of my missing TBs. One is in the hands of a cacher in Georgia. I asked him if he'd get it moving again after 3 years.... No responce.... so I asked and asked and asked again....still silence. So I looked at his inventory of trackables. What I found was that he has been stealing and hording over 80 TBs and Geocoins since 2008 that it shows have been in his hands since then. I sent Groundspeak an e-mail advising them of the situation. After a month or so, I got an e-mail from GS saying they didn't want to get involved in it. I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

Link to comment
Panther&Pine

+Panther&Pine

Posted
Posted

This is a little bit laterally off the subject, but I tracked down a couple of my missing TBs. One is in the hands of a cacher in Georgia. I asked him if he'd get it moving again after 3 years.... No responce.... so I asked and asked and asked again....still silence. So I looked at his inventory of trackables. What I found was that he has been stealing and hording over 80 TBs and Geocoins since 2008 that it shows have been in his hands since then. I sent Groundspeak an e-mail advising them of the situation. After a month or so, I got an e-mail from GS saying they didn't want to get involved in it. I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

You have ANGST.

Link to comment
baloo&bd

+baloo&bd

Posted
Posted

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

 

This is one of the main arguments AGAINST having audit logs, misuse. You may have made an assumption however highly doubtful that it was a correct one. Someone getting hassled by another because they looked at their cache at the wrong time is simply wrong and very harmful.

 

I had someone contact me once because I was the last person to DNF a cache. 4 months later and no more dnf's, part of the landscape was destroyed and it was ASSUMED it was me. While the cacher sent me a relatively nice note and it is someone I know, it was still an offensive assumption on their part.

 

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction, and that is far from useful.

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted (edited)

You have ANGST.

I think you are right. Is there a pill I can take for it? :laughing:

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction.

Voyeruristic satisfaction...... ohhh... I think I like that. hah hah hah

Edited by GC Addicted
Link to comment
firennice

+firennice

Posted
Posted

 

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction, and that is far from useful.

 

Nope...

If a cacher wants a hint on a puzzle that they looked at last night I usually will not help them. If they have been working on it for a while I am more inclined to help them out. Why would I just give out answers? I at least like them to try. Though I cannot be sure, (sometimes)I am willing to point them in the right direction if they have been trying.

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is there a reason why every thread GC addicted posts in goes way OT and its locked?

 

Also, you'll need to request a name change to jeek_addicted. Until you do that, I question your commitment to your jeek revolution.

I'm only aware of the JEEK thread that was locked. Are there others?

 

You are mistaken. I am not leading any kind of jeek revolution. I can swing both ways 'cause "IT JUST DON'T MEAN NOTHIN!" But don't get me going on that again. Besides GC Addicted is a long enough caching name to write on a log sheet. the other would be way to much. I'd rather change it to something like "!"

Edited by GC Addicted
Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Is there a reason why every thread GC addicted posts in goes way OT and its locked?

 

Also, you'll need to request a name change to jeek_addicted. Until you do that, I question your commitment to your jeek revolution.

I'm only aware of the JEEK thread that was locked. Are there others?

 

You are mistaken. I am not leading any kind of jeek revolution. I can swing both ways 'cause "IT JUST DON'T MEAN NOTHIN!" But don't get me going on that again. Besides GC Addicted is a long enough caching name to write on a log sheet. the other would be way to much. I'd rather change it to something like "!"

 

IT JUST DON"T MEAN NOTHIN"!

 

There. Fixed it for you. :lol:

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

Is there a reason why every thread GC addicted posts in goes way OT and its locked?

 

Also, you'll need to request a name change to jeek_addicted. Until you do that, I question your commitment to your jeek revolution.

So how long have you been stalking me? Every thread I am in you show up behind me and it gets locked. The KEELS thread got wierd after you showed up. All I did was ask the question. I didn't take it OT so who did? Now it's getting so that if the moderaters don't feel it's worthy (in their opinions) that it gets locked.

 

KEEL ON KEELERS!

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not stalking you. You seem to be spamming the forums with useless quips and talk about new words. As as I figure out how, you'll be on ignore.

Spamming the forums? Don't know what that means. Is that another thing you're getting started? KEEL was your word. I didn't come up with it. I never started the JEEK thread either. railroader921 did. So take it easy on me will ya, or I'm telling the moderator on you.

And all this time I thought you really Really REALLY liked me. DANG!

Want to borrow my really big chill pill?

Edited by GC Addicted
Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

I'm not stalking you. You seem to be spamming the forums with useless quips and talk about new words. As as I figure out how, you'll be on ignore.

Spamming the forums? Don't know what that means. Is that another thing you're getting started? KEEL was your word. I didn't come up with it. I never started the JEEK thread either. railroader921 did. So take it easy on me will ya, or I'm telling the moderator on you.

And all this time I thought you really Really REALLY liked me. DANG!

Want to borrow my really big chill pill?

 

The moderator, when he closed your KEEL thread, said

No need to start another thread of this type.
. The reason it was locked was because you had started up another similar thread to the JEEKS thread as soon as that one got locked. That it was locked had nothing to do with anybody but yourself.
Link to comment
NeverSummer

+NeverSummer

Posted
Posted

I'm not stalking you. You seem to be spamming the forums with useless quips and talk about new words. As as I figure out how, you'll be on ignore.

Spamming the forums? Don't know what that means. Is that another thing you're getting started? KEEL was your word. I didn't come up with it. I never started the JEEK thread either. railroader921 did. So take it easy on me will ya, or I'm telling the moderator on you.

And all this time I thought you really Really REALLY liked me. DANG!

Want to borrow my really big chill pill?

 

This back-and-forth reminds me of another thread...

 

Who is the "kid"? Who is the "adult"? Come back after the break, and we'll reveal the answer!

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let's try and stay on topic. SeekerOfTheWay comes in here and starts trashing me and I'm the one that is getting blamed for taking it OT. Up until she showed up (she follows me around. weird don't you think?) I was minding my own business about Premium Member Only caches being elitist. Should I have been doing it differently? I'm confused.

Edited by GC Addicted
Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let's try and stay on topic. SeekerOfTheWay comes in here and starts trashing me and I'm the one that is getting blamed for taking it OT. Up until she showed up (she follows me around. weird don't you think?) I was minding my own business about Premium Member Only caches being elitist. Should I have been doing it differently? I'm confused.

 

 

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful.

This is a little bit laterally off the subject, but I tracked down a couple of my missing TBs. One is in the hands of a cacher in Georgia. I asked him if he'd get it moving again after 3 years.... No responce.... so I asked and asked and asked again....still silence. So I looked at his inventory of trackables. What I found was that he has been stealing and hording over 80 TBs and Geocoins since 2008 that it shows have been in his hands since then. I sent Groundspeak an e-mail advising them of the situation. After a month or so, I got an e-mail from GS saying they didn't want to get involved in it. I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

 

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

Link to comment
John in Valley Forge

+John in Valley Forge

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

 

 

That's why I did it.

I wanna see who's scoping out my L33t cache.

 

Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

I disagree. I gave you the answer you asked for. So if your question was directly on topic, then so was my answer. You said "I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful."

Maybe you're objecting about me stating the facts about how I dealt with it once the thief was identified and how an audit log was used to make the identification. But wasn't that what you wanted to know even if you asked it in reply to someone else who said they'd had the same thing happen to them?

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

I disagree. I gave you the answer you asked for. So if your question was directly on topic, then so was my answer. You said "I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful."

Maybe you're objecting about me stating the facts about how I dealt with it once the thief was identified and how an audit log was used to make the identification. But wasn't that what you wanted to know even if you asked it in reply to someone else who said they'd had the same thing happen to them?

 

I probably couldn't see the (scarecly) on-topic portion because of all of this noise:

 

I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

Link to comment
The_Incredibles_

+The_Incredibles_

Posted
Posted
Elitism:

 

1. The belief that certain persons deserve favored treatment by virtue of their financial resources.

 

Yes, premium-members do get special treatment; they get pocket queries and notifications and special caches.

 

However, they are NOT getting this treatment because of their financial resources.

 

I've noticed that there is a small yet vocal minority amongst us who honestly believe that all things in life should be free. These kooks have some weird, deep seated hatred of corporations, (though they support places like Starbucks... Go figure), and see them as the ultimate evil. Any business charging more than is required to keep the lights on is labeled as "greedy capitalists".

 

...

 

Sorry Brother. These types of threads will continue to show up.

Posting a logical, well reasoned response won't stop them.

 

Yep. You're right. Well said. Lots of entitlement floating around these days. It's shocking how much people will spend on coffee. As for me, I limit myself to Starbucks once/year, that's how I pay for my PM. (ps, I"m a girl) :smile:

Link to comment
GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted (edited)

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

I disagree. I gave you the answer you asked for. So if your question was directly on topic, then so was my answer. You said "I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful."

Maybe you're objecting about me stating the facts about how I dealt with it once the thief was identified and how an audit log was used to make the identification. But wasn't that what you wanted to know even if you asked it in reply to someone else who said they'd had the same thing happen to them?

 

I probably couldn't see the (scarecly) on-topic portion because of all of this noise:

 

I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

 

I'd jump into the off topic discussion about being off topic in on topic except:

 

1. You two are already doing such a great job.

2. There's nothing elitist about being off topic in the on topic section.

3. It would be so very hypocritical of me to ever talk about anyone being off topic.

 

But I do invite you both to Off Topic to continue the discussion. We are real elitists over there. :anibad:

Edited by Avenois
Link to comment
PJ²:

+PJ²:

Posted
Posted (edited)

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

I disagree. I gave you the answer you asked for. So if your question was directly on topic, then so was my answer. You said "I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful."

Maybe you're objecting about me stating the facts about how I dealt with it once the thief was identified and how an audit log was used to make the identification. But wasn't that what you wanted to know even if you asked it in reply to someone else who said they'd had the same thing happen to them?

 

I probably couldn't see the (scarecly) on-topic portion because of all of this noise:

 

I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

 

I'd jump into the off topic discussion about being off topic in on topic except:

 

1. You two are already doing such a great job.

2. There's nothing elitist about being off topic in the on topic section.

3. It would be so very hypocritical of me to ever talk about anyone being off topic.

 

But I do invite you both to Off Topic to continue the discussion. We are real elitists over there. :anibad:

knowschad's nothing more than a pot stiring trouble maker. I'm done with him. He wins. I'll have nothing to do with him from now on. However, I may take you up on your off topic offer. Thanks

Edited by GC Addicted
Link to comment
GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted

Pssst... since you brought it up, your initial post to this thread was not exactly on-topic. Topic, by the way, is "Premium Member Only caches are elitist". It has nothing to do with stolen travel bugs or with Groundspeak's refusal to take action against the person you claim had stolen them.

Read back to your last post before my initial post: I was replying to your question about how one deals with theft after identifying the thief. I realize that your question had nothing to do with "Premium Member Only caches are elitist" either, but somehow the question you asked was too good to resist at the time, since I identified a thief and told you what I did about it. Is there something that I should have done differently in answering your question so that we wouldn't be having this OT discussion? I apologize if your question wasn't directed at me. Thought this was an open thread and anyone could talk about things of a geocaching nature being stolen. SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

 

My post asking how they dealt with the person they had identified as the thief was directly on topic, having to do with the audit log, which is one of the primary reasons for making a cache PMO. Your reply was a complaint about Groundspeak not taking action against your purported TB thief.

I disagree. I gave you the answer you asked for. So if your question was directly on topic, then so was my answer. You said "I'm curious how you dealt with it once the thief was identified, also how the audit log was used to make that identification. I haven't found the log to be all that useful."

Maybe you're objecting about me stating the facts about how I dealt with it once the thief was identified and how an audit log was used to make the identification. But wasn't that what you wanted to know even if you asked it in reply to someone else who said they'd had the same thing happen to them?

 

I probably couldn't see the (scarecly) on-topic portion because of all of this noise:

 

I think that's extremely chicken of GS since they could tell the thief to either turn them loose or he'd lose his membership as well as his 13,000 cache logs. I mean it seems to me that theft in an amount totaling over $400 is worse than when I was given a formal warning for using the "potty mouth S word" in the forum even though I substituted the "i" with an "*" So basically it's this.... PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP WON'T GET YOUR STOLEN PROPERTY BACK EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE LEG WORK FOR Groundspeak.

 

I'd jump into the off topic discussion about being off topic in on topic except:

 

1. You two are already doing such a great job.

2. There's nothing elitist about being off topic in the on topic section.

3. It would be so very hypocritical of me to ever talk about anyone being off topic.

 

But I do invite you both to Off Topic to continue the discussion. We are real elitists over there. :anibad:

knowschad's nothing more than a pot stiring trouble maker. I'm done with him. He wins. I'll have nothing to do with him from now on.

It's not a 1 sided pot stirring. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted

Is there a reason why every thread GC addicted posts in goes way OT and its locked?

 

Also, you'll need to request a name change to jeek_addicted. Until you do that, I question your commitment to your jeek revolution.

I'm only aware of the JEEK thread that was locked. Are there others?

 

You are mistaken. I am not leading any kind of jeek revolution. I can swing both ways 'cause "IT JUST DON'T MEAN NOTHIN!" But don't get me going on that again. Besides GC Addicted is a long enough caching name to write on a log sheet. the other would be way to much. I'd rather change it to something like "!"

 

I JUST DON"T MEAN NOTHIN"!

 

There. Fixed it for you. :lol:

fixed again

Link to comment
lamoracke

+lamoracke

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction, and that is far from useful.

 

Nope...

If a cacher wants a hint on a puzzle that they looked at last night I usually will not help them. If they have been working on it for a while I am more inclined to help them out. Why would I just give out answers? I at least like them to try. Though I cannot be sure, (sometimes)I am willing to point them in the right direction if they have been trying.

 

Course someone who looks at a puzzle 2x could be spending way more time than someone just crazily refreshing the page. Some of the toughest puzzles I have done I have barely gone back to the puzzle page and used the watchlist function. What with working on the side, spreadsheets and printing the page. Personally, it just illustrates at least to me that the PMO audit log function does not have much value minus the fact you can see which cachers have at least opened the page.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment
The Jester

+The Jester

Posted
Posted

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

 

This is one of the main arguments AGAINST having audit logs, misuse. You may have made an assumption however highly doubtful that it was a correct one. Someone getting hassled by another because they looked at their cache at the wrong time is simply wrong and very harmful.

 

I had someone contact me once because I was the last person to DNF a cache. 4 months later and no more dnf's, part of the landscape was destroyed and it was ASSUMED it was me. While the cacher sent me a relatively nice note and it is someone I know, it was still an offensive assumption on their part.

 

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction, and that is far from useful.

No misuse here. Your assumption that my ID'ing the thief is an incorrect assumption doesn't take into account all the other info I have (and I won't be sharing any of that, as it's off topic and, frankly, no ones business but mine). But the audit log was the final piece of the puzzle. I'm just saying that I've found a purpose "beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction" of the audit log and it was useful. But I doubt you'll change you expressed opinion and will continue to state dogmatically there is "no useful purpose".

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

2. I've used the audit log to ID a cache thief. So there is a use for it beyond "It's cool to look at".

 

This is one of the main arguments AGAINST having audit logs, misuse. You may have made an assumption however highly doubtful that it was a correct one. Someone getting hassled by another because they looked at their cache at the wrong time is simply wrong and very harmful.

 

I had someone contact me once because I was the last person to DNF a cache. 4 months later and no more dnf's, part of the landscape was destroyed and it was ASSUMED it was me. While the cacher sent me a relatively nice note and it is someone I know, it was still an offensive assumption on their part.

 

The audit logs serve no useful purpose beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction, and that is far from useful.

No misuse here. Your assumption that my ID'ing the thief is an incorrect assumption doesn't take into account all the other info I have (and I won't be sharing any of that, as it's off topic and, frankly, no ones business but mine). But the audit log was the final piece of the puzzle. I'm just saying that I've found a purpose "beyond some sort of voyeuristic satisfaction" of the audit log and it was useful. But I doubt you'll change you expressed opinion and will continue to state dogmatically there is "no useful purpose".

 

I'm still waiting to hear what you did with that information? Did you turn him into the police? "Out" him at a geocaching event? Meet him at a FTF with a baseball bat? Put something up on Craig's List about him?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 12
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...