share my outrage

[+KBI]

...But if you archive the cache because of those few people who 'cheated', the next ten people won't be able to find it your way. This would take away your pleasure and theirs without affecting those that would 'cheat' in any way.

Rather like ketchup in your ice cream? It's not the good part that spoils the anticipation and fun. Alas since I can't work around the non fun parts and since I'm in this for fun, it's easier to toss that cache and see if I can't get a better thing going next time around.

Huh? I seriously don't understand your reply. I have no clue whether you actually made an attempt to discuss my point, or not.

Actually I did, but we are looking at this from such different angles that I don't think we are anywhere near close enough to understand.

 

So I'll try another angle. When I create a cache I have an idea in mind for how it's supposed to work. If it works, great, the cache is a success and I enjoy the logs and owning the cache. If it doesn't work it's a failed experiment, and there is no fun in owning it. Finders can skew things one way or the other based on their internal "rules of play". If when setting up the cache I factered that in correctly it's going to work. If I didn't and they short circuit the cache, cheat on the puzzle or any thing else that shifts things to the "failed experiment" side of the equation the fun dries up and that's that.

 

My muse is variable. Different caches have different visions, ideas, themes, or however you want to think about it attached. Some are just boxes. Some are something more. Sometimes the something more works. Sometimes it doesn't. Even thought I'm willing to pull the plug on a cache that isn't any fun to own, part of my fun is figuring out the next cache so as time and life permit there will alwasy be another to see if it's going to work.

So how do you propose to prevent cachers from spoiling a puzzle for other cachers?

 

Sorry to break this to you, but every puzzle cache can be spoiled – once it's been successfully found, that is. When you are no longer the only one who knows the answer, you are no longer in complete control of the information. Logically, then, your viewpoint on spoilers should therefore prevent you from ever ever ever placing another puzzle cache, ever.

 

As for archiving a puzzle just because a few people start sharing the solution, I must protest. Sbell’s point (and mine) is that when you punish solution sharers by archiving a puzzle cache, you also punish those "innocent" cachers who choose NOT to avail themselves of clandestine help.

 

I like puzzle caches. I like them a lot. When you shut down a cool puzzle that I might have enjoyed, you have effectively put ketchup in my ice cream. Just because a few others are taking the underground route to the solution doesn’t mean I’m going to join them. If I find your puzzle cache, and I do it without help from anyone, then I will have enjoyed the exact entertainment you intended for me to enjoy, and your experiment will NOT have failed.

 

Please don’t misunderstand; I’m not claiming that I am entitled to have you entertain me, or that I have a right to your puzzles. Quite the contrary: It’s your cache to do with as you wish.

 

I just think you might want to reconsider your reasoning.

 

It’s like if Ben and Jerry were to shut down their entire company in a huff after taking personal offense to the news that a handful of customers were intentionally putting some particularly disgusting topping – ketchup, say – on their product. There’s no accounting for taste – so why begrudge someone his benign personal preference? Just because a few people want to ruin their Chunky Monkey doesn’t mean I’m not going to enjoy my own cone in the conventional, intended way. So why ruin it for me?

 

Please reconsider.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So how do you propose to prevent cachers from spoiling a puzzle for other cachers?

 

Sorry to break this to you, but every puzzle cache can be spoiled – once it's been successfully found...

 

Just like you said. You can't prevent it. Others have said in other threads that one advantage of FTF is that it's the one time you can find the cache exactly as the owner intended. Some people value that. If everone did we wouldn't have the problem. The only reason it's a problem is that some people care. If owners didn't care there wouldn't be a problem either. Of course if they really and truly didn't care they woulnd't place puzzles and other caches that can be cheated becaus of the time involved. It's easier to place a box.

 

Over time I've learned about what's going to work and what's not. It's a fuzzy line so I still place caches that get short circuited and are not fun to own.

[+KBI]

...So how do you propose to prevent cachers from spoiling a puzzle for other cachers?

 

Sorry to break this to you, but every puzzle cache can be spoiled – once it's been successfully found...

Just like you said. You can't prevent it. Others have said in other threads that one advantage of FTF is that it's the one time you can find the cache exactly as the owner intended. Some people value that. If everone did we wouldn't have the problem. The only reason it's a problem is that some people care. If owners didn't care there wouldn't be a problem either. Of course if they really and truly didn't care they woulnd't place puzzles and other caches that can be cheated becaus of the time involved. It's easier to place a box.

 

Over time I've learned about what's going to work and what's not. It's a fuzzy line so I still place caches that get short circuited and are not fun to own.

So, let me see if I’ve got this straight:

• If, as a cache owner, it does not outrage me when the occasional finder shortcuts one of my puzzles ... then you’re saying I don’t care about the hobby?
  
• When you deny a cool puzzle hide of your own to ALL future seekers by archiving it just because you’re offended that a few cachers shortcutted your puzzle ... then that means that you DO care?
  

Sorry, but you’ve lost me.

 

Sorry to break this to you, but every puzzle cache can be spoiled – once it's been successfully found...

Just like you said. You can't prevent it ...

... Over time I've learned about what's going to work and what's not.

You have?

 

Well, which is it? Can you prevent puzzle solution sharing, or can’t you?

 

Based on your FTF comment, the only thing I can imagine is that you've apparently decided from now on to archive each new puzzle cache immediately after the first (and therefore only) find. Effective? Yes. Efficient? Not very. Legal? That's up to the reviewers.

 

But hey, like I said: It's your cache.

[+StevenWill]

Heres a different idea, perhaps we should all join that way we could try and change it from just giving the answers to giving ideas on how we all can grow and solve the puzzles. The "in the know people" could help the less knowledgeable people become good code breakers. Setting up similiar type of examples and helping people solve those, this could change the present attitude and help convert a few people into puzzle solvers. I am in Canberra where the ratio of puzzle caches is pretty high and some of them I just don't see! Would be nice if you could complete them with the work but still complete them! Like for example on cipher caches I found a web site that told you how to identify different types and go about solving each type - now at least when I see one I can give it a go. But there are some caches out their I do not even have a clue were to start.

 

Anyway thats just my ideas

 

Steve

[+Renegade Knight]

...So, let me see if I’ve got this straight:

[*]If, as a cache owner, it does not outrage me when the occasional finder shortcuts one of my puzzles ... then you’re saying I don’t care about the hobby?

[*]When you deny a cool puzzle hide of your own to ALL future seekers by archiving it just because you’re offended that a few cachers shortcutted your puzzle ... then that means that you DO care?...

 

Well, which is it? Can you prevent puzzle solution sharing, or can’t you? ...

 

Cache oweners who take the time to make a puzzle care is what I said. That if they didn't really care all that much they would just do a box. No the reverse isn't true that folks who do a box don't care.

 

As for deying future finders of the fun. I never get that far. Either a cache is fun to own or it's not. If it's not I archive it.

 

Lastly what I've learned is to adapte caches to better work as planned. I can't prevent cheating, but I can make a cache more likely to "work" as my muse has in mind. Which makes it more likely that I'll have fun owning the cache and more likely that I will live a long and happy life. Until our maggot steals it but that's another thing. I've got one I'm about ready to resore. I liked owning it enough to bring it back in spite of the maggot. Go figure.