Jump to content

what to do with a problematic member


normis

Recommended Posts

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

 

*dead* AHAHAHA! :D

This wins the internets!

 

- Elle

Link to comment

...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.

 

... "This is behind my favourite Radio Shack. I wish I knew if that funky smell was a dead rat or a dead pigeon."

 

ROFL! These images will linger. Especially the mashed potatoes. :)

Link to comment

...

What shall we do with a problem member

Ear-lie in the morning

...

 

I SWEARTAGAWD first day this post ran, I started to reply "Pull 'im in a longboat 'til he's sober..."

but thought "Naaaahh....too arcane, nobody'll get that."

 

Arrrrrr!!

~*

Yeah, I couldn't help hearing the tune every time I saw the title.

 

Shave his belly with a rusty razor...

Link to comment

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

 

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 :)

 

You can't have fun caching becasue your attitude sucks. That or you are a powerless wimp letting someone you haven't met have power overy you. Your choice either way, or you can take some control over your own life.

 

His caches placed while not the best are valid. End of story. Use the ignore button. Or find them and stick thim in a container and log in all your braggardly glory what a fine deed you have done. Maybe they will get a clue. The venting will make you feel better.

His caches destroyed, if you can prove this are just cause to have his account banned.

 

If I'm off base with your question "what to do with a problematic member" and you are really talking about something else. Try Viagra.

Edited by Renegade Knight
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 :)

 

You can't have fun caching becasue your attitude sucks. That or you are a powerless wimp letting someone you haven't met have power overy you. Your choice either way, or you can take some control over your own life.

 

His caches placed while not the best are valid. End of story. Use the ignore button. Or find them and stick thim in a container and log in all your braggardly glory what a fine deed you have done. Maybe they will get a clue. The venting will make you feel better.

His caches destroyed, if you can prove this are just cause to have his account banned.

 

If I'm off base with your question "what to do with a problematic member" and you are really talking about something else. Try Viagra.

Seems like a un-diplomatic way to express your thought but I do see your point. There is no way that geocaching can always only present us with great caches. The most we can hope for is that Groundspeak will come up with better filters that will make it easy to avoid caches we don't want to find. In the mean time maybe the OP can team up with all the others that dislike the caches and go out and place lots of good caches to find. :cute:

Link to comment

I absolutely LOVE this! I keep thinking about coming across a black Hefty bag in the middle of a field. I'd be saying to myself, "Hold on...waaaaaiiiitttt a minute! I've seen a cache like this before, placed by the same dude who placed this one! I'm such a dunderhead..." and walk away. Actually, to be quite honest, as one who practices CITO, I'd view this as garbage and not even open it. I'd pick it up and drop it into the nearest garbage can. How tough is that?

Link to comment

Yet another example of why new cachers should be required to find 50 caches before hiding one. One hundred would be even better.

You know I hear this rant a lot.... My first hide was done when I had about a dozen finds and it's still there in good shape, also regularly maintained. I see people that have 100's of finds that can't figure out how to hide a peanut butter jar on a store shelf! It's all about the individual my friend! I' contend , if you are a hunter or trapper or just an avid outdoors person you have an advantage in your hides. But please let's not go down the "you need x=amount of cache finds road"

Link to comment
Seems like a un-diplomatic way to express your thought but I do see your point. There is no way that geocaching can always only present us with great caches. The most we can hope for is that Groundspeak will come up with better filters that will make it easy to avoid caches we don't want to find. In the mean time maybe the OP can team up with all the others that dislike the caches and go out and place lots of good caches to find. :anitongue:
Now if GC could just come up with a way to filter logs....

 

Clicky-click-click.....

"Made a cache run and found ten bazillion caches today. Thanks for hiding them..."

 

CTRL+C, CTRL+V.... click!

"Made a cache run and found ten bazillion caches today. Thanks for hiding them..."

 

BEEP

I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that. You've already entered that as a log entry. Our system requires a unique log entry for each cache. Your CTRL key, your "C" key and your "V" key, as well as your clipboard have been temporarily disabled. Please try again.

Link to comment
Seems like a un-diplomatic way to express your thought but I do see your point. There is no way that geocaching can always only present us with great caches. The most we can hope for is that Groundspeak will come up with better filters that will make it easy to avoid caches we don't want to find. In the mean time maybe the OP can team up with all the others that dislike the caches and go out and place lots of good caches to find. :anitongue:
Now if GC could just come up with a way to filter logs....

 

Clicky-click-click.....

"Made a cache run and found ten bazillion caches today. Thanks for hiding them..."

 

CTRL+C, CTRL+V.... click!

"Made a cache run and found ten bazillion caches today. Thanks for hiding them..."

 

BEEP

I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that. You've already entered that as a log entry. Our system requires a unique log entry for each cache. Your CTRL key, your "C" key and your "V" key, as well as your clipboard have been temporarily disabled. Please try again.

 

Hmmm. Then the log would look something like this:

 

Made a ahe run and found ten bazillion ahes today. Taunted inny. Thanks for the ahe.

 

Well, at least it'd be unusual!

Link to comment
You know I hear this rant a lot

You hear it a lot, (not as a rant, incidentally, but as a suggested course of action), because it is basically a sound idea, based upon this singularly solid premise: "Experience is an awesome teacher". Is it a perfect idea? No. Are there exceptions? Of course. Do the imperfections inherent in the idea, or the potential exceptions mean that it shouldn't be suggested? Not at all. Could someone who has never found a cache hide the greatest cache of all time? Technically, I reckon so.

 

For those folks who are physically and mentally capable of learning, it is an every day, every minute experience. I know more now than I did 10 minutes, (10 hours, 10 days, 10 weeks, etc..) ago. This experience makes me a better cacher. Every cache I find makes me a better cacher. Note: This principle obviously does not apply to those folks who cannot or will not learn.

 

When I am approached by noobs looking for advise on their first hide, I suggest they pick an entirely arbitrary number. Completely up to them. If pressed for a suggestion, I'll say "100". Not that 100 is the quintessential perfect number, but it does roll off the tongue easily. This gives them a challenge to reach. A milestone they can strive for. It also shows them 100 caches hidden by other quirky folks who spend their off days hunting Tupperware. I suggest to them that, by the time they find 100 caches, they'll have a better idea of what works, and why it works. It also helps, (slightly) in reducing geolitter placed by folks who fade away from the game after a few finds.

 

So, perfect rule? No. Pretty good idea? I think so.

Link to comment

In the "Exception to the rule" department....

Probably the two best caches I've found so far, one a 4 stage and one a 5 stage multi, were both placed years ago by a cacher with 1 find and 2 hides!

A counter-example is one local here with over 3,000 finds and almost 100 hides, I've found at least 30 of them and they're all LPCs or nanos on a bench or pill bottle tossed next to a tree type things that generally receive very uncomplimentary find logs. Oh, and they often have soft coordinates to boot.

I did wait until I had about 60 finds before hiding my first though.

Really I think it's based more on the creativity of the person and not so much about how many smileys they have.

So I'd have to disagree on the minimum find requirement before being allowed to hide.

 

I would be interested in the ability to ignore particular hiders in my PQs though. I know I can just skip them when I'm out caching...but that's hard for me to do when I'm driving by one and it comes up on the screen.

Link to comment
You know I hear this rant a lot

You hear it a lot, (not as a rant, incidentally, but as a suggested course of action), because it is basically a sound idea, based upon this singularly solid premise: "Experience is an awesome teacher".

In this case, textbook learning is probably more important than experience. Someone who has never found a cache but has read and understood the guidelines, read the tutorials on hiding your first cache, and looked at some of threads on the forum such as the Cool Cache Containers thread will likely hide a much better cache than someone who has simply found an arbitrary number of caches and decided they are ready to hide one. You never know what someone who experienced finding a plastic bag with a log sheet under a lamppost skirt might have learned - perhaps that hiding a cache can be easy and inexpensive. It might not even matter if they found 99 other hides that weren't lamppost hides, that one is likely to make a great impression. Over time, experience may be a great teacher in learning which specific containers and hiding styles work well and which don't. Discovering caches that have lasted for a long time in good conditions and others where the logs are soaking wet after every rain, will result in making better choices when hiding their own caches. But much of this information is available on several websites along with other suggestions from experienced geocachers. Some of this information is the author's personal preference, but even so long as it is understood as a suggestion rather than a rule for hiding caches, it can help get the new hider to think about whether they really want to hide a cache in a certain place.

 

I personally think an online test for new hiders is not a bad idea. This is more to encourage people to actually read the guidelines on which the test would be based and to serve as a didactic tool for those that don't read them to at least learn some of the rules. Clearly some will use the browser back button just to force the right answers and hide a cache without reading the guidelines, but in doing so they will learn a bit.

Link to comment

...So I'd have to disagree on the minimum find requirement before being allowed to hide....

I agree with your disagreement. Why require a cache owner to become jaded and expose them to the crap that everyone else is trying to avoid just so they can "teach" the new owner how to hide a cache. I'm all for giving them a shot based on what their muse is calling them to do. It's the one time that they have no preconceived notions as to what a cache is, or isn't. It's your best shot at an idea so completely new that nobody has seen before.

 

Conversly if you find 200 caches, you have gained expereince as a cache finder. Apparently some folks want you to have experience as a hider before you hide. That's about as logical as saying "you should hide a certain number of caches before you go find your first." There is some merit to the idea, but it has it's limits and I would not champion that idea either.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I stand by my earlier statements and you are free to disagree with them. I don't have a problem with that ..... but here's a thought ....... How many caches do you think the original hider found before he hid the first one? Just a thought. I haven't read the complete history of caching so maybe he found 100 (unofficially) before he hid the first one (officially), I don't know. The point is, it doesn't matter how many caches you find, your hides may still qualify as a "junk" hide no matter how flowery a description you would like to give it. You're either good at hiding or you're not...lol for the most part. I know cachers that have 1000's of finds but will be the first to admit when it comes to hiding a cache they're terrible at it, of course it probably didn't take long for them to figure that out and that's cool too. I know a lot of cachers that have under 20 finds that have put out some awesome caches. I better cap it this time "IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL" bottom line.

Link to comment

... "IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL" bottom line.

 

THIS-ness.

 

I could cite a good example I think -- myself! I hid my first one when I had 6 finds. A new place (our new visitor's center) opened up, & I thought if I didn't grab the spot somebody else would. But I had sense enough to read everything I could lay my eyes on, about HOW to do it right, beforehand. Still in place - still gettin' visits....see it here 'Hi, Pilgrim!' if you're curious, & judge for yourself whether you think it was well thought out.

 

If I'd been subject to any kind've 'experience' stricture, I kinda doubt I'd be playin' the game today....and our area would have 30-some less caches than it now has, plus the forthcoming dozen-or-so I now have in the works.

 

I don't think we've suffered too awfully much due to my 'inexperience'. And, I don't ride down the road tossing out film cans, either.

 

~*

Link to comment

Kewl! I'm wondering though... Are you better at hiding a cache now than you were 5 minutes after you hid your first one?

If so, that would seem to lend at least a hint of credence to the axiom that experience is a great teacher.

If not, please disregard. :laughing:

 

I'm better.

 

My hides are still stupidly obvious BUT I choose my location carefully so visitors see something interesting and the cache itself is protected from the elements.

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

 

Maybe if I read all the replies to the OP I would see someone else had picked up on the fact that the OP has 70 finds over just 3 months of geocaching and ZERO hides himself. If you don't like the type of hides in your area, hide some "good ones" YOURSELF!

 

I heard a commencement speech one time where the speaker said, "If you don't like your job, quit. If you don't quit, shut up". If you don't like the hides, hide some yourself. If you don't hide some, shut up.

 

JMHO

 

Loch Cache

Link to comment

 

Maybe if I read all the replies to the OP I would see someone else had picked up on the fact that the OP has 70 finds over just 3 months of geocaching and ZERO hides himself. If you don't like the type of hides in your area, hide some "good ones" YOURSELF!

 

I heard a commencement speech one time where the speaker said, "If you don't like your job, quit. If you don't quit, shut up". If you don't like the hides, hide some yourself. If you don't hide some, shut up.

 

JMHO

 

Loch Cache

According to others above, 70 finds is not enough experience to be allowed to place a cache.

 

I would disagree, as it's 15% of the total caches in the country. Perhaps we should say that if you reach 10% of the national total, then you're allowed to start placing? Would that work in the USA? After all, you have lamp post micros there, so it's a lot easier to gain experience by logging a few thousand of them.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

It's ad hominem, though, to tell a person who has an issue with, say, a local cacher, to shut up if they haven't hidden anything. Just because someone hasn't hidden something doesn't mean that they are incapable of recognizing a bad hide, or being displeased with a hide that they, as a finder, have spent valuable time going out to find.

 

Now, personally I think it is very good advice to say "if you don't like how people are doing it, go out and do it better". I think that this is really good advice. On the other hand, though, I think that it is perfectly valid for someone to come here and say, "these caches are terrible, what do you suggest I do about it?" and for them to get constructive advice and not get slammed for having the temerity to open their mouths to simply ask a question.

 

Edited to add: So here's a recap of some of the advice:

 

1) Try to get in contact with the cacher, and enlist other cachers in your area to do so, to educate the cacher (I see that this has been attempted)

2) Ignore the cacher's caches

3) Go out and place cool caches (and generally be a model of a good cache hider)

 

I'd argue for a combination of two and three. Plus, if I had something that awful going on in my area, I'd put a watch on all of the cacher's caches and keep some cool caches prepped and ready to go. So the minute I saw that the cacher's caches got archived due to disappearing or falling completely apart, I'd put out a new cache in the same area.

 

(Edited again to add: I'm sure there are some other constructive suggestions that I've missed.)

Edited by Jackalgirl
Link to comment

...On the other hand, though, I think that it is perfectly valid for someone to come here and say, "these caches are terrible, what do you suggest I do about it?" and for them to get constructive advice and not get slammed for having the temerity to open their mouths to simply ask a question.

 

Agreed.

 

Edited to add: So here's a recap of some of the advice:

 

1) Try to get in contact with the cacher, and enlist other cachers in your area to do so, to educate the cacher (I see that this has been attempted)

2) Ignore the cacher's caches

3) Go out and place cool caches (and generally be a model of a good cache hider)

 

I'd argue for a combination of two and three.

 

I'd say that (2) is not wholly tenable. Geocaching is done by a minority of people in public spaces that are populated by muggles. From time to time, muggles learn of geocaching. But if a geocache is hazardous, dangerous, trashy, unpleasant, etc., it does reflect on the whole community of geocachers. Simply ignoring it does not address this concern, and I haven't seen much discussion from this point of view. I'd propose personally ignoring the cacher's caches when seeking to find caches, but do not ignore the cacher's caches when it comes to the public image. This harkens of (1), consensus building, sending the photographs to the cache pages and inviting the admins to see for themselves what is going on. They have a stake is this activity too.

Link to comment

<snip>

2) Ignore the cacher's caches

<snip>

 

I'd say that (2) is not wholly tenable. Geocaching is done by a minority of people in public spaces that are populated by muggles. From time to time, muggles learn of geocaching. But if a geocache is hazardous, dangerous, trashy, unpleasant, etc., it does reflect on the whole community of geocachers. Simply ignoring it does not address this concern, and I haven't seen much discussion from this point of view. I'd propose personally ignoring the cacher's caches when seeking to find caches, but do not ignore the cacher's caches when it comes to the public image. This harkens of (1), consensus building, sending the photographs to the cache pages and inviting the admins to see for themselves what is going on. They have a stake is this activity too.

 

I see your point; however, if the cache fits the cache guidelines, I would not be surprised to find out from the reviewer or other PTB that they are going to take no action. Were that to happen, one would either have to agitate for the cache guidelines to be changed (in such a way that doesn't put an undue burden on creativity) or, well, suck it up.

 

I completely agree with your point re: photographs and consensus building, though. If enough people take pictures, and if other cachers start posting notes to the cache like "I've looked at the pickers and ick! This is awful, I won't even attempt it", perhaps the cacher might get a clue. Likewise, if the cache is trashy and gets trashed, enough "Needs Maintenance" posts will probably encourage the reviewer to disable and/or archive the cache (I'm not recommending that anyone abuse the cache reporting system, mind you).

 

Edited to add: Nor am I recommending that people trash or "help along" trashy trashes.

Edited by Jackalgirl
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...