Jump to content

what to do with a problematic member


normis

Recommended Posts

We have one new member in our city that just registered, and started by submitting caches (not searching). his caches are mostly commented as "garbage" and worse words. he usually puts some stuff in a plastic bag, and drops it on the ground in the grass. He has no idea about any rules, or just plain common sense. Then he goes on destroying other caches (logged visit, next finder only collected remains of the box). Several members have attempted to contact this user, but no response. What could be done in such situation? He keeps publishing new caches, and all of them are really bad! It's not just me who thinks they are, 99% of comments are strong criticism

Link to comment

Ignore him. It's not your problem. Go caching. Have fun. :)

 

I can't have fun caching when the map is full of these "fake" caches. Whenever a cache appears, everyone has to check if this is not one of the trash-caches. If he goes on like this, we will have to make custom filters in GPX file to remove this joker, and this will be a waste of time just because of one person.

 

EDIT: I see that you defend everything that is lame. This explains your post :)

Edited by normis99
Link to comment

I see he does have some finds.

 

It looks like his caches are getting an overwhelming negative response.

I would probably try and give him a little help... it is possible that the mistakes he has made are out of ignorance.

 

I know that is still not an excuse for what looks to me like not even trying to read the guidelines.

 

- Rev Mike

Link to comment

Ignore him. It's not your problem. Go caching. Have fun. :D

 

I can't have fun caching when the map is full of these "fake" caches. Whenever a cache appears, everyone has to check if this is not one of the trash-caches. If he goes on like this, we will have to make custom filters in GPX file to remove this joker, and this will be a waste of time just because of one person.

 

EDIT: I see that you defend everything that is lame. This explains your post :unsure:

 

*blink* And normis99 takes the prize for unwarranted attack of the day!

 

Why not just 'ignore' any caches by this owner, move on, and have fun? Is that such bad advice?

Link to comment

Just a shot, but he's likely not a Premium Member. Not a bulletproof remedy, but AFA keeping him away from y'alls caches, make them for PMs only -- and contact others who also see him as a problem & urge them to do so too. *

 

As far as his caches - they're identified as his when they're published, right? Anybody holding a gun to your head to make you go look for 'em? Or - when you go after 'em and fiind trash that needs CITO, well by golly just CITO!

 

When he starts gettin' no logs, no complaints, no nothin', maybe he'll get the picture.

 

Edit to add: *But then, you'd be an elitist.

Either, congratulations, or, just can't win, huh?

Helluva world, ain't it? :unsure:

 

~*

Edited by Star*Hopper
Link to comment

If I'm being uninformed/naive please enlighten me, but how the heck would a plastic bag plopped in the grass be approved? I am not ready to hide a cache yet so I'm not up to speed on that whole process, but it just doesn't make any sense to me how something like that would be approved to begin with.

Link to comment

If you stumble across one of this person's caches, I'd recommend taking a picture of the cache and posting it in your log. You don't have to give away its location. However, it could provide some visual clues to the next cacher that this cache is sub-par in quality. And if the original cache-hider didn't actually leave it in that condition (e.g., someone found it, stole the container, left the log in a plastic baggie), that can make it obvious that this has happened.

 

Edited to add: I see that some people have already done this. Barring actually writing to the person (which I understand several people have done) in a nice, welcome-to-geocaching way, I agree with Rev Mike's good advice.

Edited by Jackalgirl
Link to comment

Ignore him. It's not your problem. Go caching. Have fun. :D

 

I can't have fun caching when the map is full of these "fake" caches. Whenever a cache appears, everyone has to check if this is not one of the trash-caches. If he goes on like this, we will have to make custom filters in GPX file to remove this joker, and this will be a waste of time just because of one person.

 

EDIT: I see that you defend everything that is lame. This explains your post :unsure:

 

*blink* And normis99 takes the prize for unwarranted attack of the day!

 

Why not just 'ignore' any caches by this owner, move on, and have fun? Is that such bad advice?

 

But some people like finding plastic bags tossed into the grass! Who are you to take away their fun? Sorry, couldn't resist. Must be an American thing. :P The "staunch defender of everything lame" is just a joke around here.

 

OK, seriously now. I don't know how many people noticed, but the OP is from Latvia. Only 424 caches in the whole country. I'm sure everybody there isn't well-versed on the ignore list, or ever even thought about using it before. But I have to agree with most of the other people, and ignore him. Not just the hides, but if he is in fact destroying the caches, ignore that too. People can get together and make their hides "premium members only", that sometimes helps in those situations.

 

Editing to add, I don't think there is enough evidence he destroys caches. Looks like only one of his finds is disabled, and destroyed sometime after his visit.

 

Wasn't very hard to find the guy, and his caches, by the way. I'm quite surprised most cache names, cache descriptions, and cache logs in Latvia are in English!

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

If I'm being uninformed/naive please enlighten me, but how the heck would a plastic bag plopped in the grass be approved? I am not ready to hide a cache yet so I'm not up to speed on that whole process, but it just doesn't make any sense to me how something like that would be approved to begin with.

Check out the guidelines. Basically a cache is a container with a log in it, placed with adequate permission.

 

This creates a problem for Reviewers as well, as a plastic bag in the grass doesn't please many folks, but being legal they have to hold their nose and publish it!

Link to comment

If I'm being uninformed/naive please enlighten me, but how the heck would a plastic bag plopped in the grass be approved? I am not ready to hide a cache yet so I'm not up to speed on that whole process, but it just doesn't make any sense to me how something like that would be approved to begin with.

How is a reviewer to know if a cache is a plastic bag tossed into some tall weeds? If the description says (in its entirety): "Easy cache for a quick smiley, have fun!", and it's not in a restricted area, then most reviewers would publish without a second thought.

 

Edit to stay on topic: The OP stated that the locals have already tried to contact the person. If it's really such a serious problem, then go find the cache and post a "needs archived" log. I believe all caches require a permanent "container"; and calling a plastic bag a permanent "container" is a bit of a stretch.

Edited by J-Way
Link to comment

If I'm being uninformed/naive please enlighten me, but how the heck would a plastic bag plopped in the grass be approved? I am not ready to hide a cache yet so I'm not up to speed on that whole process, but it just doesn't make any sense to me how something like that would be approved to begin with.

How is a reviewer to know if a cache is a plastic bag tossed into some tall weeds? If the description says (in its entirety): "Easy cache for a quick smiley, have fun!", and it's not in a restricted area, then most reviewers would publish without a second thought.

 

Well, I don't know about your reviewer, but the last time I was even thinking about diong another of my famous, "toss a film canister out the window at 70 mph and take a reading" caches, my phone rang! And it was Heartland Cacher on the other end, warning me not to even try it... I guess Vinny tipped him off, down the instantaneous psychic link that came about as a result of the alie...[censored].

Link to comment

If I'm being uninformed/naive please enlighten me, but how the heck would a plastic bag plopped in the grass be approved?

The reviewer has only what it says on the cache page to go on. Like most who hide this type of cache, the page is pretty brief in its description. As far the reviewer is concerned this could be a fancy container in a reasonable place. You can't tell from the cache page. And if someone should post an SBA after finding a cache like this, TAR is right, there is nothing in guidelines about it. There is a containter (bag) with a log to sign. No place does it say you have to hide it in a "Wow" place.

 

I'm not sure if I found the right guy. Looks like he only has six hides. Not exactly saturating the area. Seems to have hidden them in his first week of geocaching and hasn't hidden more since them. Either he already is bored or the negative logs have gotten him to rethink the idea of hiding more. Perhaps if he hides more he will think about better containers and hiding spots. No real evidence that he trashed that cache either. Could be a coincidence that he found it the same day. Seems there are earlier logs cache saying was destroyed and people just kept logging it when they found the remains.

 

I think normis99 ought to take a breath and relax a bit. Yep, throwing down a plastic baggie in an exposed location is probably going end up with cachers having a bad experience - wet logs or the cache missing altogether. My experience is that these caches won't last; the owner or a review will end up archiving them. The owner may well get bored and stop geocaching. I'm also thinking this may be a kid with limited resources to buy a good box or log book and is making due with materials he gets for free.

Link to comment

I'd post a NM log along the lines of: "All I found was a log sheet in a plastic bag lying on the grass. Clearly the container has gone missing and the cache is not in its hiding spot."

 

If the guy gets enough of those maybe he will figure it out. If not, the sheer abundance of NM logs with no response will get the attention of somebody.

Link to comment

I'd post a NM log along the lines of: "All I found was a log sheet in a plastic bag lying on the grass. Clearly the container has gone missing and the cache is not in its hiding spot."

 

If the guy gets enough of those maybe he will figure it out. If not, the sheer abundance of NM logs with no response will get the attention of somebody.

 

Or better yet, a SBA with the same comment. If the guy doesn't get it, maybe the reviewer can help him understand.

 

Jim

Link to comment

Ignore him. It's not your problem. Go caching. Have fun. :unsure:

I didn't defend him... though I could - if his caches are legal (they're published, so they must be) then I could.

But

What I did was give you some advice that might make your caching life more fun, if you have the foresight to take it!

 

I encourage a "this is what I would do" approach. It seems to feel less critical.

 

What I would do in that case is ignore him. It's not my problem. I just go caching and try to have fun. :D

Edited by traildad
Link to comment

YEAH! That's what makes the 'Ol USA so great!

It's not my problem...and roll on!

 

Well it IS your problem, my problem and everyone's problem!

Are vertebrae in such short supply these days?

 

My spine doesn't reach as far as Latvia. I'm a short person. Is that everyone's problem, too? :unsure:

Link to comment

YEAH! That's what makes the 'Ol USA so great!

It's not my problem...and roll on!

 

Well it IS your problem, my problem and everyone's problem!

Are vertebrae in such short supply these days?

What would your vertebrae do in that case. Are you going to "make" him stop? If I don't like the quality of the caches someone was placing, do I have to make it a problem?

Link to comment

YEAH! That's what makes the 'Ol USA so great!

It's not my problem...and roll on!

 

Well it IS your problem, my problem and everyone's problem!

Are vertebrae in such short supply these days?

What would your vertebrae do in that case. Are you going to "make" him stop? If I don't like the quality of the caches someone was placing, do I have to make it a problem?

 

On the job, I think for people who either can't or won't think for themselves.

 

When someone comes to me and points out a problem, I usually tryyy make them think of a solution before taking action myself. Sometimes I catch a break and it works. :unsure:

 

If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :P

 

If you truly believe this person is a cache maggot, they probably have a regular user account and an IP comparison would catch the person red handed. They are easier to catch on a local/regional forum website, but maybe your reviewer can help.

 

Now, once you have caught them what exactly are you prepared to DO? :rolleyes: Got an answer AZ? :angry:

 

Faced with just that, my local group decided to kill the cache maggot with kindness and it (or maybe the meds) worked........ for awhile. :lol: Then we were back to just ignoring them until they faded away.....

 

There is (almost) no street justice in geocaching. :)

 

Annnd, I just couldn't help myself:

 

what to do with a problematic member

 

viagra.jpgor in MY case... Saltpeter.JPG

 

Well somebody had to make the joke. It might as well be me. :):D

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:

 

Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

Edited by Rev Mike
Link to comment

If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:

 

Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

 

Oooops! I forgot to add.

 

If the caches appear to be outside the guidelines in some form or fashion, post an SBA and get a reviewer involved.... Ummmm, AFTER you have actually found the cache and can confirm it is not within guidelines and stated that clearly in your SBA note. :D

 

I added that second part for the same reason that there are instructions on boxes of toothpicks. :P

Link to comment

If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:

 

Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to bend the 'permanence' guideline to include the quality of the container. I would not wish to make the reviewers into arbiters as to what a quality container is.
Link to comment

If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:

 

Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to bend the 'permanence' guideline to include the quality of the container. I would not wish to make the reviewers into arbiters as to what a quality container is.

The second paragraph is about making sure your cache doesn't accidentally become short-lived. That would include not using a container that is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean I expect the reviewers to evaluate containers, just as I don't expect them to make sure the contents fit the guidelines.

Link to comment
If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:
Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to bend the 'permanence' guideline to include the quality of the container. I would not wish to make the reviewers into arbiters as to what a quality container is.
The second paragraph is about making sure your cache doesn't accidentally become short-lived. That would include not using a container that is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean I expect the reviewers to evaluate containers, just as I don't expect them to make sure the contents fit the guidelines.
All containers are doomed to failure.

 

Incorporating continers into the permananence guideline would force reviewers to determine whether a specific container would be acceptable in each specific circumstance since anyone could argue that any particular container would be fine for a specific use. I'm sure that you could come up with five or ten uses of baggies as a container that would make the cache 'permanent enough'.

Link to comment
If the caches are hidden within the guidelines, ignore them. :unsure:
Even though I am in favor of ignoring them, I would have to say the caches sound to me like they violate at least this portion of the guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I agree with the needs maintenance logs and finally an SBA if there is no response but only if you find you really can't ignore them.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Edit to finish what I was typing when I accidentally submitted the post.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to bend the 'permanence' guideline to include the quality of the container. I would not wish to make the reviewers into arbiters as to what a quality container is.
The second paragraph is about making sure your cache doesn't accidentally become short-lived. That would include not using a container that is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean I expect the reviewers to evaluate containers, just as I don't expect them to make sure the contents fit the guidelines.
All containers are doomed to failure.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've had many containers that outlived the cache listing. The ones that didn't, disappeared, so I don't attribute that to the type of container.

Incorporating continers into the permananence guideline would force reviewers to determine whether a specific container would be acceptable in each specific circumstance since anyone could argue that any particular container would be fine for a specific use. I'm sure that you could come up with five or ten uses of baggies as a container that would make the cache 'permanent enough'.

It would force no such thing. As I said, there are clear guidelines for cache contents, but unless the hider spells out the contents in the description, does anyone expect reviewers to make sure they are followed? Same with the logbook requirement -- the one thing a cache must have to be listed here. As far as I know, no reviewer has traveled to my caches to check what was in them. This, by the way, is why I don't buy the "It was approved so it must be good" argument. The reviewers can only verify so much.

 

Yes, a plastic baggie is fine in many situations. I've seen a few, generally protected from the elements. I have to question a baggie lying in the grass as the OP describes.

Link to comment

What would Jimmy Buffet do? Jimmy Buffet would do what TheAlabamaRambler recommended. Since you're rejecting that...

 

My advice is to stay up at night worrying about it. Really work up a good hate for this person, who you don't even know. Seethe at the very thought of their username. If you can, find them elsewhere on the internet, read every word in their blogs and email them nasty things about their children. And then email EVERYONE about everything this person does. Really turn psycho. Get yourself so worked up that you see soggy wet log sheets in your cereal in the morning and your spouse catches you molding your mashed potatoes into an ammo box during dinner.

 

Get so overwhelmed with emotional involvement in how someone else is playing the game that you actually begin replacing their hides in ways that they work then emailing them to say, "Found your cache in incredible disarray. I fixed it so it's hidden from public view and will withstand the weather." If the location is a sucky spot and you think they placed it because they can and not because they should, make a comment about the place. "This is behind my favourite Radio Shack. I wish I knew if that funky smell was a dead rat or a dead pigeon." Comments about location may lead this person to realise people care about where they are. Recommend coords when coords are more than 15' off.

 

Collaborate with fellow experienced locals to tutor this person regardless of whether you get a response or not. Check your cache hides after this person finds them to make sure things are put back. If they weren't, you're able to save your cache AND email them to tell them what they should do next time they find a cache. Watch the chia pet grow with time and experience.

 

Anyway, that's my advice.

 

- Elle

Edited by Redneck Parrotheads
Link to comment
Incorporating continers into the permananence guideline would force reviewers to determine whether a specific container would be acceptable in each specific circumstance since anyone could argue that any particular container would be fine for a specific use. I'm sure that you could come up with five or ten uses of baggies as a container that would make the cache 'permanent enough'.
It would force no such thing. As I said, there are clear guidelines for cache contents, but unless the hider spells out the contents in the description, does anyone expect reviewers to make sure they are followed? Same with the logbook requirement -- the one thing a cache must have to be listed here. As far as I know, no reviewer has traveled to my caches to check what was in them. This, by the way, is why I don't buy the "It was approved so it must be good" argument. The reviewers can only verify so much.

 

Yes, a plastic baggie is fine in many situations. I've seen a few, generally protected from the elements. I have to question a baggie lying in the grass as the OP describes.

If you are expecting reviewers to archive caches because the container didn't meet your definition of permanent, then it follows that you would expect them to decide whether any specific container is 'permanent' enough for any specific cache. I don't believe that this is the intent of the permanence guideline. In fact, I would argue that the referenced guideline does not mandate that the container meet any quality guidelines. It instead mandates that cache owners maintain their caches as necessary. This results in those caches that utilize 'substandard' containers requiring more maintenance, but doesn't forbid them from being listed solely because of the container chosen. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Don't think AR was defending anything because it was "lame", the defending is for something because it was "legal". (and belated Happy Birthday!)

 

Slim Bob's are nothing but a heavy plastic bag with usually a magnet or Velcro attached and they're accepted. In fact if you put it to a vote I think you'd find that a plastic bag is a lot more permanent a GC container then an Altoid's tin which I believe there are one or two of those out there :P I agree with the ignore suggestion unless they start affecting your caches. As far as the log entries, even the NM ones. and posting pictures of the hide with a log, the owner can delete 'em as fast as people post them.

 

Maybe start a "lame caches" or "should be archived" bookmark list and add all their's to it and get all your GC buddies to do the same. People might not hunt a cache when they see it belongs to dozens of negative bookmark lists and the owner can't do much about them :)

Link to comment

Ignore him and encourage others to ignore the caches as well. If no one finds them, maybe this cacher will get the drift and quit placing them?

 

Another option would be to contact your local reviewer and inform them of the gross negligence of the rules/guidelines and express your concerns in a civil manner.

Edited by NeoAddict
Link to comment

We have one new member in our city that just registered, and started by submitting caches (not searching). his caches are mostly commented as "garbage" and worse words. he usually puts some stuff in a plastic bag, and drops it on the ground in the grass. He has no idea about any rules, or just plain common sense. Then he goes on destroying other caches (logged visit, next finder only collected remains of the box). Several members have attempted to contact this user, but no response. What could be done in such situation? He keeps publishing new caches, and all of them are really bad! It's not just me who thinks they are, 99% of comments are strong criticism

 

Sounds like to me reviewer should be notified and maybe be a little more involved in checking these before approving.

Link to comment

Ignore him and encourage others to ignore the caches as well. If no one finds them, maybe this cacher will get the drift and quit placing them?

 

Another option would be to contact your local reviewer and inform them of the gross negligence of the rules/guidelines and express your concerns in a civil manner.

 

ayep, except for the encouraging part. Everyone will figure it out, and after a bit the caches will be universally ignored and fade into geotrash oblivion. Known or suspected guideline infractions should be run past a reviewer. (get your tennies on!)

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

We have one new member in our city that just registered, and started by submitting caches (not searching). his caches are mostly commented as "garbage" and worse words. he usually puts some stuff in a plastic bag, and drops it on the ground in the grass. He has no idea about any rules, or just plain common sense. Then he goes on destroying other caches (logged visit, next finder only collected remains of the box). Several members have attempted to contact this user, but no response. What could be done in such situation? He keeps publishing new caches, and all of them are really bad! It's not just me who thinks they are, 99% of comments are strong criticism

 

temporaraly change your caches to members only - if he isnt a paying member he wont be able to go destroy your caches and report him to jeremy

Link to comment

I'd recommend taking photos of some of this persons "caches", and e-mailing them to your local reviewer so they know what sort of caches are being placed, your reviewer can then choose to check this persons "caches" more carefully when reviewing them if they think there is a problem. Also an email from a reviewer may hold more weight than emails from "regular" cachers.

 

If you find any more of these caches, keep writing what you think in the paper logs and online, and encourage other local cachers to do so, surely if they ever check their logs they will eventually get the message or give up because all they get is criticism.

Link to comment

What shall we do with a problem member

What shall we do with a problem member

What shall we do with a problem member

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Ear-lie in the morning

Link to comment
...or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published.

I see what you're saying with the bags not being durable, but I had a rarely found cache develop problems. The container got chewed up by an animal. A finder found the container, didn't have a replacement, but they had a freezer type plastic bag that they put the contents into so everything would stay dry. I went to replace it later on and found that it was hidden better with the bag and everything was totally dry, so I left it.

 

The logs for it are funny. "I'm surprised how well the container is holding up." "The container is much more durable than I imagined..."

Link to comment

Ignore him. It's not your problem. Go caching. Have fun. :D

 

I can't have fun caching when the map is full of these "fake" caches. Whenever a cache appears, everyone has to check if this is not one of the trash-caches. If he goes on like this, we will have to make custom filters in GPX file to remove this joker, and this will be a waste of time just because of one person.

 

EDIT: I see that you defend everything that is lame. This explains your post :D

 

*blink* And normis99 takes the prize for unwarranted attack of the day!

 

Why not just 'ignore' any caches by this owner, move on, and have fun? Is that such bad advice?

 

Even if the CO does ignore the caches there will be others that will not. Ignoring poor behavior provides no deterrent to continuing to exhibit poor behavior. When someone new comes along, they don't know that the problem cacher is being ignored and may see the problem cacher as a precedent for how they might place their own caches.

Link to comment
Even if the CO does ignore the caches there will be others that will not. Ignoring poor behavior provides no deterrent to continuing to exhibit poor behavior. When someone new comes along, they don't know that the problem cacher is being ignored and may see the problem cacher as a precedent for how they might place their own caches.

 

I forget where it was (I think on a cache page in the archived note), but I read something from my local reviewer that said almost the same thing...The problem as he saw it wasn't so much with that specific cache, but the fact that other people would copy the idea thinking it was an acceptable hide (I think it had to do with a screw in a tree IIRC).

Link to comment

Looks like you've already received some good advice, so all I have to add is THANK YOU for pointing those cache logs out to me, they were very amusing to read. Latvians really tell it like it is (which is refreshing)!

 

Those Latvian logs sure are zany. Simple and right to the point. I'm sure this is because almost all the logs are in English, which is a 2nd language for the loggers.

 

Hey, what happened to Normis? No word from him since post 3!!

 

Nice song there, Dino. :D

Link to comment
Even if the CO does ignore the caches there will be others that will not. Ignoring poor behavior provides no deterrent to continuing to exhibit poor behavior. When someone new comes along, they don't know that the problem cacher is being ignored and may see the problem cacher as a precedent for how they might place their own caches.

 

I forget where it was (I think on a cache page in the archived note), but I read something from my local reviewer that said almost the same thing...The problem as he saw it wasn't so much with that specific cache, but the fact that other people would copy the idea thinking it was an acceptable hide (I think it had to do with a screw in a tree IIRC).

The difference between this issue and the one you remember is that tree screwing (ooh, dirty!) is against the guidelines while choosing a questionable container is not.
Link to comment

I hope some day TPTB will add the ability to ignore all hides from a particular user with a single mouse click. Till then, there is a workaround method I saw in these forums involving GSAK. The results are the same, but it's a little more work. Till then, about all you can do is educate yourself, by paying attention to the cache pages and advise your reviewer of any guideline issues you may perceive.

Link to comment
Even if the CO does ignore the caches there will be others that will not. Ignoring poor behavior provides no deterrent to continuing to exhibit poor behavior. When someone new comes along, they don't know that the problem cacher is being ignored and may see the problem cacher as a precedent for how they might place their own caches.

 

I forget where it was (I think on a cache page in the archived note), but I read something from my local reviewer that said almost the same thing...The problem as he saw it wasn't so much with that specific cache, but the fact that other people would copy the idea thinking it was an acceptable hide (I think it had to do with a screw in a tree IIRC).

The difference between this issue and the one you remember is that tree screwing (ooh, dirty!) is against the guidelines while choosing a questionable container is not.

Sbell111 has made a good point, in my opinion. I personally detest the idea of using flimsy plastic bags (except perhaps for a sturdy small ziplock bag stashed tightly and safely in a spot which is well-protected from the weather, such as inside the hollow of a metal fence post) as cache containers, and yet I must admit that such practice seems to be within the guidelines, and I must also note that I have found several caches across the USA which were nothing more than a soggy mass of logbook and moldy trade items stuffed inside a leaky plastic bag (in fact, this seems to be a common practice in parts of northern Colorado and among some older caches located near Laurel Maryland (near DC.) In fact, none of these caches was a new placement, and each of these caches had been in place for at least two years and had seen many finders over that time span.

 

As for the OP's other complaints about the hides of the cacher in question: no one is forcing you to hunt caches placed by this person, and, believe it or not, you have free will, and therefore you have complete control over your behavior. Thus, you are free, from this point forward, to simply ignore caches placed by this hider. As for cache vandalism, the easiest thing to try first is to convert caches to PMOC status, as this measure alone seems to work at least 87.9439% of the time, according to the latest studies.

Link to comment

What shall we do with a problem member

What shall we do with a problem member

What shall we do with a problem member

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Log all his hides "Des Palourdes Mortes"

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Put all his hides on your cache ignore list

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Send a picture to your cache reviewer

Ear-lie in the morning

 

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Turn all your hides into PMOCs

Ear-lie in the morning

 

OMG! ROFLMAO! :D:D:D:wub:

 

You have no idea how much that hurts, but if you look in my gallery or on the worst injury thread, you might get some idea of the pain you have caused. :santa:

 

:) OUCH! :D OUCH! ;) OUCH! :santa: OUCH!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...