+Rockin Roddy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The 14 year old analogy is all about making the punishment fit the crime. What does being out after curfew have to do with the kid's driver's license, especially when he wasn't driving and isn't eligible for a license yet anyway? [/color] I don't know, but if you can put it into a contest tht fits this discussion, I might understand a bit better! In this case, the crime is trespassing after hours and the punishment is possible loss of ability to cache...FOR EVERYONE in the affected area! Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The 14 year old analogy is all about making the punishment fit the crime. What does being out after curfew have to do with the kid's driver's license, especially when he wasn't driving and isn't eligible for a license yet anyway? [/color] I don't know, but if you can put it into a contest tht fits this discussion, I might understand a bit better! In this case, the crime is trespassing after hours and the punishment is possible loss of ability to cache...FOR EVERYONE in the affected area! What does breaking the law have to do with whether you're allowed to log a find on a private website? Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The 14 year old analogy is all about making the punishment fit the crime. What does being out after curfew have to do with the kid's driver's license, especially when he wasn't driving and isn't eligible for a license yet anyway? [/color] I don't know, but if you can put it into a contest tht fits this discussion, I might understand a bit better! In this case, the crime is trespassing after hours and the punishment is possible loss of ability to cache...FOR EVERYONE in the affected area! What does breaking the law have to do with whether you're allowed to log a find on a private website? When the landowner/manager has the ability to read the log and stop us from caching...if we can't FORCE someone to remedy their log, the fallout is possibly far-reaching! Quote Link to comment
+Too Tall John Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I personally think that the OP's concern could be answered when looking at this from a "Cache Permanence" issue. From the guidelines: 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.If you think the land manager/owner will object to your cache being there because of unwanted activity, it is your responsibility to address such activity. The only recourse a CO has, short of archival (which defeats the Permanence guideline), is to delete the logs of the offending cacher. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I personally think that the OP's concern could be answered when looking at this from a "Cache Permanence" issue. From the guidelines: 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.If you think the land manager/owner will object to your cache being there because of unwanted activity, it is your responsibility to address such activity. The only recourse a CO has, short of archival (which defeats the Permanence guideline), is to delete the logs of the offending cacher. THANK-YOU TTJ, I agree. If we're no longer allowed to keep the activity to what teh landowner wishes, we can only archive or allow the trespassing and risk losing of our fun! Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The 14 year old analogy is all about making the punishment fit the crime. What does being out after curfew have to do with the kid's driver's license, especially when he wasn't driving and isn't eligible for a license yet anyway? [/color] I don't know, but if you can put it into a contest tht fits this discussion, I might understand a bit better! In this case, the crime is trespassing after hours and the punishment is possible loss of ability to cache...FOR EVERYONE in the affected area! What does breaking the law have to do with whether you're allowed to log a find on a private website? When that private business decides that logs that say they are using their website AND breaking the law might be bad for business. Seems to me that a smart business wouldn't let those shenanigans slide, just to allow the offenders to get their precious find. Besides, a few people said (including me) that the offender might be allowed by the owner to resubmit their log without the comments that got the log deleted in the first place. If they refuse to change it or do not respond, I reserve the right to delete their log. Quote Link to comment
+JacobBarlow Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so.... In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word).... Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR? Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed? I guess this comes down to: Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.) Thanks for your clarification! ~* I can see asking them to change their log and not mention when time they were there if you don't want cachers to look bad, but I don't think you should say someone can't log a find because they broke a law, have you ever gone 1 MPH over the speed limit for a moment while traveling to a cache? Guess you'd better not log it either by your standards. lol Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I can see asking them to change their log and not mention when time they were there if you don't want cachers to look bad, but I don't think you should say someone can't log a find because they broke a law, have you ever gone 1 MPH over the speed limit for a moment while traveling to a cache? Guess you'd better not log it either by your standards. lol This isn't about going over the speed limits. This is about going into parks and cemeteries after hours (trespassing), hurting property in order to find a cache and not offering to pay for damages (vandalism), or other things that get you more than a ticket. I've had people say they got pulled over while speeding towards my cache. They admit their dumbness and thank me for the find. If someone says they hop over a gate, or destroy public property looking for the cache and laugh about it, then the owner can become responsible for their bad actions, along with the offender! Leaving those logs be can mean trouble for the owner if the park owner or authorities get a look at them. Don't feel like having geocaching banned in my areas so some jerk gets to have a find. If the person changes the wording of their log, that might be different. The talk here is about serious offenses, anyways. Quote Link to comment
+Cache O'Plenty Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) There is a difference between the log and the find. Yes, he found it and if he signed the logbook, then it can be counted as a find. How he did that is not the issue. The contents of the log narrative are the problem here, not the find. It may seem unfair but if a cache owner allows the log containing an admission of unlawful activity to remain, then he is condoning the activity. And, in some cases may even constitute conspriacy or abetting a crime after the fact. Requesting that the log be edited is fine as long as it is done, but that just leaves the log on-line that much longer. That log should be deleted. Additional thought: It is implicit in the guidelines that lawbreaking is not condoned. Placing an admonishment in the Cache page that says "Do not violate park hours." or "Do not park in the red zone" are not ALRs. They are merely reminders of existing rules. They do not constitute ALRs. Edited April 7, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty Quote Link to comment
+Castle Mischief Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 If I as a hider of a cache have to follow the guidelines as written: However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived. Then how could it possibly be permitted for a seeker of a cache to ignore the same "No Trespassing" (which is the same thing as jumping a fence after hours) sign to find the cache? I'm leaning towards the log deletion crowd. Love to hear from TBTB. Don't think we will. Quote Link to comment
GPS-Hermit Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 We have many parks in our area that have signs for their hours and the public violates them on a regular basis without any fear of enforcement. The park authority know about this and are OK with it if no problems are resulting from it. Some run early, some hike late. There are other park that are enforced and have reason for enforcing them due to vandalism or safety issues. Somehow this needs to be considered in the judgement because in these cases entrance after hours is an unspoken rule. If the owner has spoken after learning which way this is and entrance after hours is TRUELY NOT allowed then cachers should be told and they should obey! Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 We have many parks in our area that have signs for their hours and the public violates them on a regular basis without any fear of enforcement. The park authority know about this and are OK with it if no problems are resulting from it. Some run early, some hike late. There are other park that are enforced and have reason for enforcing them due to vandalism or safety issues. Somehow this needs to be considered in the judgement because in these cases entrance after hours is an unspoken rule. If the owner has spoken after learning which way this is and entrance after hours is TRUELY NOT allowed then cachers should be told and they should obey! What happens if a problem results from it? How will you know when a problem might result from it? After the problem results from it, there's no button to push making it not have happened... Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Obeying posted hours don't qualify as an ALR. It's not an additional task to be performed. So take that out of the equation, and ask yourself if you would delete their log before the ALR announcement was made, and do the same. Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 There is a difference between the log and the find. Ding ding ding, we have a winner! If I placed a cache in a park with opening hours, especially if I had had to negotiate with the land manager, and somebody logged an "illegal" find, I would: 1) mutter "idiot" under my breath, possibly preceded by intensifiers of Anglo-Saxon origin 2) delete the log 3) immediately write to the finder and invite them, politely and maybe even with a smiley or two, nicely, to resubmit their log in a way which they (and I) wouldn't mind the land manager reading 4) repeat step 1) Result: land manager is blissfully ignorant (as long as she doesn't have the cache on a watchlist ), cache seeker gets their smiley, my cache is free of angst, and my wife - who has excellent hearing - is telling me off for my potty mouth. Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours. The sentiment here bothers me a bit. It seems to be placing some of the blame for illegal behavior on someone other than the criminal. "Jimmy Ray done robbed that there 7-11 because society was keepin' him down" or "Billy Bob broke into the jewelry store 'cuz them dang jewelers make their stuff way too purdy". Both are circular ways of expressing that Jimmy Ray and/or Billy Bob are not responsible for their actions. My job as a cache owner does not include ensuring that some schmoo won't break the law while hunting for it. If you get a speeding ticket rushing after a FTF on my cache, the fault is entirely yours, not mine. If you get arrested for entering a park after hours, the fault is entirely yours, not mine. In this imaginary scenario, I hid a cache and someone else chose when to hunt it. In no way does this make me irresponsible. Quote Link to comment
+paleolith Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Seems clear from the discussion: posting about illegal activities can get a log deleted (though of course I'd request that the logger change it), but acting illegally to find a cache should not prevent logging the find as long as illegal activities are not mentioned. I can see where even the STF might (as mentioned) realize that the FTF had broken the law. I would still have to ask the STF not to include that in the log. Pretty much the same thing as potty language. Edward Quote Link to comment
+Dr. House Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 What does breaking the law have to do with whether you're allowed to log a find on a private website? When that private business decides that logs that say they are using their website AND breaking the law might be bad for business. Seems to me that a smart business wouldn't let those shenanigans slide, just to allow the offenders to get their precious find. So why are there geocaches listed on this private website in Cuba? By your logic, given the illegality of GPS usage within that country, these caches should never be allowed to be logged. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you're placing a cache in a park that has limited hours, you are being irresponsible if you don't leave a note to the reviewer asking them to publish the cache around the time the park opens thereby limiting the possibility that the FTF will get there after hours. The sentiment here bothers me a bit. It seems to be placing some of the blame for illegal behavior on someone other than the criminal. "Jimmy Ray done robbed that there 7-11 because society was keepin' him down" or "Billy Bob broke into the jewelry store 'cuz them dang jewelers make their stuff way too purdy". Both are circular ways of expressing that Jimmy Ray and/or Billy Bob are not responsible for their actions. My job as a cache owner does not include ensuring that some schmoo won't break the law while hunting for it. If you get a speeding ticket rushing after a FTF on my cache, the fault is entirely yours, not mine. If you get arrested for entering a park after hours, the fault is entirely yours, not mine. In this imaginary scenario, I hid a cache and someone else chose when to hunt it. In no way does this make me irresponsible. If you close your shop and go home for the day but leave your door wide open, don't blame someone else when people enter it after hours and take all your stuff. Your 7-11 analogy isn't even close to what I was talking about. Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 So why are there geocaches listed on this private website in Cuba? By your logic, given the illegality of GPS usage within that country, these caches should never be allowed to be logged. I don't know they allow caches to be listed from Cuba. Cuba censors their people unfairly and I wouldn't really compare them to our laws in parks. Geocaching.com is a listing service anyways and lists caches on the good faith that the owners respect the guidelines and the laws that they must live by. They don't know the rules for countries/states/cities/parks that the caches are placed in and cannot be expected to. This is the owner's job to know that. It is also the right of the owner to make sure that their cache doesn't cause problems with those who could make geocacher's lives miserable (authority figures). If someone defaces property, trespasses after hours, or does something else that puts me in a bad position, I will delete their log and/or ask them to rephrase what they said. Is a deleted log that can be redone better the worst thing happen in the world? I think not. Plus, geocachers breaking the law and mentioning it on their log is rare. I haven't seen one in the dozens of caches I have owned over the years. A couple times, things get broken by accident, but the cachers step up and make sure that everything is set. But it does happen and their can be terrible consequences if authority figures find out that geocachers have broken a law. Geocaches have been banned in areas because of this crap. I have no clue why you or anybody else can support leaving logs be that could have those terrible ramifications! Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 So the almighty notch on the "find belt" is more important than protecting geocaching and its integrity? I'm not saying delete every find for any reason, but if I find someone writing a log that an authority figure could read and kick me out of their park(s), I will delete the log faster than you can spit. That also includes logs that include swearing and crudeness. The owner is not the villain here. The finder should use common sense and courtesy, just like the owner should. There has to be respect on both sides. It should be a given that if you knowingly break the law to find a cache, then arrogantly write about your criminal activity on the cache page, you should expect your log to be deleted. I agree with this completely. Substitute "stupidly" for arrogantly if need be. So can we agree that if the person breaks some sort of law that they never mention, that you would then be OK with that find log standing? That is tricky. Maybe a geocacher gets arrested for doing something bad at the park where they were looking for my cache. They get out of jail and log a find and doesn't mention a thing about the incident. Do I let it pass and forget about it, or do i delete it because of the fact they broke the law while on the hunt for my cache? I might let it stand, depending on the situation, but that doesn't mean I am happy or OK with it. Finds are great and they are the central point of geocaching, but there are non-geocaching issues that come up in these discussions that make things really tricky. But I still say it is up to the owner to decide in that situation. Everyone will act differently, but I believe they have the right to do decide. It is their cache, after all. Quote Link to comment
+WRITE SHOP ROBERT Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Getting to another question that fits right in hand with the OP... I'm planning on hiding a Nano cache that was gifted to me, and it will be hidden in a place where there are MANY possibilities. My Cache description plans to include that if the Cache is not placed back in the same place, all logs since my last visit will be deleted(since I will not know which of them moved it, and I do not want to spend hours looking for it each time I need to visit). Is requiring the Cache to be replaced where it belongs condidered an ALR? How about requiring that the finder be a registered user of the site? Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 ... But I still say it is up to the owner to decide in that situation. Everyone will act differently, but I believe they have the right to do decide. It is their cache, after all. But if the 'finder' files an appeal, will Groundspeak reinstate his find based on my inclusion of the Posted hours being an ALR? And as is very evident by the posts above, it is a point of major confusion, hence my asking for clarification - the OFFICIAL positon. For the record, I would delete the log, and without asking for a 'cleansing'. And further, if it was within my ability I'd ban the perpetrator from ever claiming the find as his punishment for violating the applicable civil laws or regulations in the first place. Let it forever remain there, on his maps, untouchable & 'in his face', as a reminder to obey the rules or face consequences of not doing so. Unfortunately, it is not. And BTW, to imply that I'm somehow irresponsible for choosing a site with 'closed hours', even tho I've posted them, is nothing short of ludicrous. I did all I can do by posting the hours in the description - I can't stay out there & walk guard duty on it too, fer gosh sakes!! It goes without saying that not posting applicable closed hours isn't 'right', rather than have folks travel to the site and then discover they can't legally hunt it. (& BTW2, says something too about 'not reading cache descriptions'!!) Anyway, all the above doesn't exactly address the issue I'm asking about. The central point is, BY posting the hours, am I implying the find MUST be made between X & Y hours, making that an 'Additional Requirement' to log the find? And guys guys....the pros & cons have been very adequately stated, so can we please back off the 'debate' (or any further 'diversions') now & wait for TPTB to make their decision & post it, before it turns into such a mess they won't, or worse, lock the thread unanswered? I'd appreciate it - Thank You! ~* Quote Link to comment
+Allanon Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Anyway, all the above doesn't exactly address the issue I'm asking about. The central point is, BY posting the hours, am I implying the find MUST be made between X & Y hours, making that an 'Additional Requirement' to log the find? And guys guys....the pros & cons have been very adequately stated, so can we please back off the 'debate' (or any further 'diversions') now & wait for TPTB to make their decision & post it, before it turns into such a mess they won't, or worse, lock the thread unanswered? I'd appreciate it - Thank You! ~* In my opinion... First, if someone actually reads the cache page prior to finding the cache, no, not an ALR since you know of the requirement in advance. Second, if a log is deleted because they didn't read the cache page...gray area. The requirement is stated but may not be known. I'd' still say not an ALR, but again, just my opinion. Third, I still doubt TPTB will comment. Have you considered asking your reviewer? Quote Link to comment
+timpaula Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm with the people who say "delete the log to discourage the activity." I'm about to do this cache, which is called "Environmentally Sensitive Area Cache" and requests "PLEASE DO NOT GET OFF THE PATH UNTIL YOU REACH THE CACHE AREA". They obtained permission from a local land conservancy organization to do this. Seeing logs like "boy this is easier if you bushwhack" would only encourage more of the same behavior, to say nothing of making the conservancy mad and potentially cause the rest of the caches on their land to be pulled. As a parent, I'd say we're talking about "rewarding bad behavior", which only gets you more of the same. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm with the people who say "delete the log to discourage the activity." I'm about to do this cache, which is called "Environmentally Sensitive Area Cache" and requests "PLEASE DO NOT GET OFF THE PATH UNTIL YOU REACH THE CACHE AREA". They obtained permission from a local land conservancy organization to do this. Seeing logs like "boy this is easier if you bushwhack" would only encourage more of the same behavior, to say nothing of making the conservancy mad and potentially cause the rest of the caches on their land to be pulled. As a parent, I'd say we're talking about "rewarding bad behavior", which only gets you more of the same. I'd state that "ANY evidence of people bushwacking will force me to archive this cache, PLEASE stay on the trail". I would state this more than once and in different forms of the same language so everyone knows I mean stay on the trail. BUT, I think most of us know this will not happen, some people don't care, don't read or just are against doing things they are asked to do, so maybe not placing the cache is a better choice? Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you close your shop and go home for the day but leave your door wide open, don't blame someone else when people enter it after hours and take all your stuff. Your 7-11 analogy isn't even close to what I was talking about. Seriously? Just because something is really really really easy to steal makes it okay to steal? It's not the criminal's fault if the door is wide open? There are laws against stealing. There are no laws (or guidelines) against publishing a cache during the hours that the park is closed. If someone submits a cache to be published, the finders have ALL the choices as to when to find it, or even to find it at all. And if they choose to find it when the park is closed they can also choose to break the law to find it or not. The cache hider has zero responsibility in the matter if the finder makes the wrong choice. It's the same thing as if the finder gets injured while trying to get to a difficult to reach cache. The hider isn't responsible for the injury. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you close your shop and go home for the day but leave your door wide open, don't blame someone else when people enter it after hours and take all your stuff. Your 7-11 analogy isn't even close to what I was talking about. Seriously? Just because something is really really really easy to steal makes it okay to steal? It's not the criminal's fault if the door is wide open? There are laws against stealing. There are no laws (or guidelines) against publishing a cache during the hours that the park is closed. If someone submits a cache to be published, the finders have ALL the choices as to when to find it, or even to find it at all. And if they choose to find it when the park is closed they can also choose to break the law to find it or not. The cache hider has zero responsibility in the matter if the finder makes the wrong choice. It's the same thing as if the finder gets injured while trying to get to a difficult to reach cache. The hider isn't responsible for the injury. The point is that the store owner does not have zero responsibility in my example. Of course the criminals are responsible for their own actions, but if the store owner is inviting people to steal stuff do you really think his insurance company is going to pay 100% of any loss claim? Now, if you place a cache in a park that has restricted hours, you know the FTF crowd will head out the door the instant it is published, and you know that the reviewer typically published caches after hours, you have a responsibility to request the cache be published while the park is open. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm with the people who say "delete the log to discourage the activity." I'm about to do this cache, which is called "Environmentally Sensitive Area Cache" and requests "PLEASE DO NOT GET OFF THE PATH UNTIL YOU REACH THE CACHE AREA". They obtained permission from a local land conservancy organization to do this. Seeing logs like "boy this is easier if you bushwhack" would only encourage more of the same behavior, to say nothing of making the conservancy mad and potentially cause the rest of the caches on their land to be pulled. As a parent, I'd say we're talking about "rewarding bad behavior", which only gets you more of the same. I think that comes back to the right an owner has always had. If someone posts a spoiler comment in their find log, you can ask them to edit it (because an owner cannot edit logs). If the person does not, you can delete their note and ask them to relog it without the sensitive information in it. Even if you think the spoiler is so sensitive that you can't wait for back and forth emails, you can delete their note and tell them why and invite them to relog it in an appropriate way. This is not an "ALR", as they can log the find. You just don't want sensitive material to be in that log. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It all boils down to this for me...my listings will not change, I will not remove the do not trespass wordings. I will delete logs mentioning illegal trespass, they will be given the choice to re-log without mention or they can not log at all, but I will not allow for logs mentioning illegal trespass or any other illegal activity which could upset a land owner or make me suspect to a crime. This would include vandalism among other things! Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) BUT, I think most of us know this will not happen, some people don't care, don't read or just are against doing things they are asked to do, so maybe not placing the cache is a better choice? Darned anti-ALR crowd! Now they're trampling on saplings and destroying foliage in their quest to ignore instructions on the cache page! Edit: Spelling Edited April 8, 2009 by Trinity's Crew Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 BUT, I think most of us know this will not happen, some people don't care, don't read or just are against doing things they are asked to do, so maybe not placing the cache is a better choice? Darned anti-ALR crowd! Now they're trampling on saplings and destroying foliage in their quest to igore instructions on the cache page! Sarcasm aside, we all know some people just don't read the cache listing or ALL of the cache listing...but thanks for making light of the comment! Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) If you close your shop and go home for the day but leave your door wide open, don't blame someone else when people enter it after hours and take all your stuff. Now we're creeping up on the absurd. You are suggesting that I not blame a burglar for his criminal act, simply because I left a door open? Even though the burglar still chose to enter my store after hours. Then chose to remain in my store after realizing it was closed. Then chose to remove merchandise without paying for it. Yup! It makes perfect sense not to blame that guy. Didn't I see this on Rosie O'Donnell? The Handwringer's Guide to Blaming the Victim? if the store owner is inviting people to steal stuff do you really think his insurance company is going to pay 100% of any loss claim? Forgetting to secure a door is not an invitation to commit criminal acts. If I catch Billy Bob walking out of Circuit City at 3:00am, toting a big screen TV, and arrest him following an investigation, I'm not going to remove the handcuffs because the manager didn't lock up for the night. At trial, the jury isn't going to issue a not guilty verdict. The Judge isn't going to divide the jury's suggested sentence between Billy Bob and the store manager. In this case, the store manager would be responsible for not closing a door. Nothing more. Billy Bob would be responsible for burglary. Edited April 8, 2009 by Clan Riffster Quote Link to comment
+Proud Soccer Mom Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I've gone over the comments in both threads and I'm confused as to where the confusion is. I agree that people should be able to maintain the discernment of which caches they would like to hunt. I agree that people should be able to hide with ALR and expect that that ALR be heeded to log a find. I don't see the changes as inhibiting either ability. I see a redefinition that categorises any ALR as a Mystery. By recategorising the ALR caches as Mysteries, they become easier for number players to avoid and will ease up the frustration and headaches for owners who are sick of number players not doing the ALR - mostly because few number players even bother to read the cache page. This is a win/win, although it is understandable that owners with Traditional caches with ALR are going to experience some pain at the transition of their existing cache. For those who are transitioning, owners will not find their caches phased out, just altered in accordance with the current change. With so much criticism of Groundspeak grandfathering in caches in the past, it's little wonder why the choice was made to place current caches into transition instead of continuing to grandfather. I read that owners have complete control over how they wish to proceed with their cache and, by working with their reviewers, will be able to make a smooth transition to keeping a compliant cache with ALR. It's not necessary to dive into the ridiculous specifics of what is considered ALR. For some players, "Signing the Logbook" is ALR when they think it's perfectly acceptable to log a find when the logbook isn't signable. Do we really need to get down that nitty gritty? While some of you will think that we do, I don't think so. There is a place for common sense and some things are self-evident. Attributes exist without being classified as ALR. If requirements for logging a find on a cache extend beyond what the Attributes can determine, there's a good chance it is ALR and is better being recategorised as a Mystery. It's important to remember that this game is a voluntary activity. You pay to play or you play for free. No one is forcing you to participate. There are even alternative options out there that people play instead of or in addition to this game. Disagreement is rational but a continued argumentative disagreement over a website that hosts one version of a hobby isn't rational. I also think it's best if people wishing to understand and debate these guideline changes would avoid involving metaphors in an attempt to make a point that is best made by handling the actual topic. I know that most of my confusion at what was being argued in both threads came from people straying off-topic in their own fantasies about what this situation "is like". It's possible that if you cannot discuss the actual topic without explaining something entirely different, you might not be able to discuss the topic and should wait until you can. Quote Link to comment
+Castle Mischief Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 The point is that the store owner does not have zero responsibility in my example. Of course the criminals are responsible for their own actions, but if the store owner is inviting people to steal stuff do you really think his insurance company is going to pay 100% of any loss claim? So now you're saying that placing a cache is an invitation to break the law? Really? I've placed a cache in a park that closes at 9 PM and just because it's there I am inviting people to enter the park after hours? FTF-hounds aren't the only people that could try and find the cache after hours, should I disable the cache to remove my invitation to break the law? Actually, if it's disabled it's still visible, maybe I should archive it and ask a reviewer to re-enable it once the park opens again? Clearly seekers in your example are helpless to ignore logic, common sense, and the law due to the siren song of my ammo can hiding in the park after hours. We must protect these innocent cache hunters from themselves. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I've gone over the comments in both threads and I'm confused as to where the confusion is. I agree that people should be able to maintain the discernment of which caches they would like to hunt. I agree that people should be able to hide with ALR and expect that that ALR be heeded to log a find. I don't see the changes as inhibiting either ability. I see a redefinition that categorises any ALR as a Mystery. By recategorising the ALR caches as Mysteries, they become easier for number players to avoid and will ease up the frustration and headaches for owners who are sick of number players not doing the ALR - mostly because few number players even bother to read the cache page. This is a win/win, although it is understandable that owners with Traditional caches with ALR are going to experience some pain at the transition of their existing cache. For those who are transitioning, owners will not find their caches phased out, just altered in accordance with the current change. With so much criticism of Groundspeak grandfathering in caches in the past, it's little wonder why the choice was made to place current caches into transition instead of continuing to grandfather. I read that owners have complete control over how they wish to proceed with their cache and, by working with their reviewers, will be able to make a smooth transition to keeping a compliant cache with ALR. It's not necessary to dive into the ridiculous specifics of what is considered ALR. For some players, "Signing the Logbook" is ALR when they think it's perfectly acceptable to log a find when the logbook isn't signable. Do we really need to get down that nitty gritty? While some of you will think that we do, I don't think so. There is a place for common sense and some things are self-evident. Attributes exist without being classified as ALR. If requirements for logging a find on a cache extend beyond what the Attributes can determine, there's a good chance it is ALR and is better being recategorised as a Mystery. It's important to remember that this game is a voluntary activity. You pay to play or you play for free. No one is forcing you to participate. There are even alternative options out there that people play instead of or in addition to this game. Disagreement is rational but a continued argumentative disagreement over a website that hosts one version of a hobby isn't rational. I also think it's best if people wishing to understand and debate these guideline changes would avoid involving metaphors in an attempt to make a point that is best made by handling the actual topic. I know that most of my confusion at what was being argued in both threads came from people straying off-topic in their own fantasies about what this situation "is like". It's possible that if you cannot discuss the actual topic without explaining something entirely different, you might not be able to discuss the topic and should wait until you can. Wrong topic, please re-read the OP. There are three other topics covering your comment! Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 BUT, I think most of us know this will not happen, some people don't care, don't read or just are against doing things they are asked to do, so maybe not placing the cache is a better choice? Darned anti-ALR crowd! Now they're trampling on saplings and destroying foliage in their quest to igore instructions on the cache page! Sarcasm aside, we all know some people just don't read the cache listing or ALL of the cache listing...but thanks for making light of the comment! You're welcome! It was too good to pass up, but it wasn't meant to be sarcastic, just humorous. Some people just don't like doing things they are asked to do. I think this statement applies on both sides of this discussion. On-topic... have we gotten clarification on when a cache owner CAN delete a log and expect it to stick? Quote Link to comment
+Proud Soccer Mom Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Wrong topic, please re-read the OP. There are three other topics covering your comment! Oh that's right. This one was about robbing stores. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Wrong topic, please re-read the OP. There are three other topics covering your comment! Oh that's right. This one was about robbing stores. No, but reading the OP would tell you that it's about trespassing and deletion of logs containing illegal activities. The robbing stores comments have come from debate in this area and are on-topic! Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) BUT, I think most of us know this will not happen, some people don't care, don't read or just are against doing things they are asked to do, so maybe not placing the cache is a better choice? Darned anti-ALR crowd! Now they're trampling on saplings and destroying foliage in their quest to igore instructions on the cache page! Sarcasm aside, we all know some people just don't read the cache listing or ALL of the cache listing...but thanks for making light of the comment! You're welcome! It was too good to pass up, but it wasn't meant to be sarcastic, just humorous. Some people just don't like doing things they are asked to do. I think this statement applies on both sides of this discussion. On-topic... have we gotten clarification on when a cache owner CAN delete a log and expect it to stick? I can agree with the not doing as asked comment, some would rather do just the opposite! Those are the ones who you just can't get through to regardless. I have stated I will delete any logs containing illegal activities which could affect landowner/manager relationships. If my deletions don't stick, I will pull all my caches hidden in any location which has posted hours...which is ever cache I own I believe! Not a power trip, not a "taking my ball' issue, it's reality! Let's hope I never have to test the issue! Edited April 8, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Quote Link to comment
+Singletree Expedition Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's ironic that... A park closing after dark is somewhat of an arbitrary rule that "punishes" the good guys due to what the bad guys *might* do. Yet, no one here is arguing that parks should be open at night (not that it would do any good here... just saying). On topic... I would not delete the find of anyone who actually found the cache. I may ask that they reword the log to protect the integrity of the cache, the cache owner, or geocaching in general. Also, I would not expect Groundspeak to publicly address the issue of criminal activity anymore than it already has as it should not be part of the game. Any such issues are best handled on a case by case basis until a need arises for something more formal. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's ironic that... A park closing after dark is somewhat of an arbitrary rule that "punishes" the good guys due to what the bad guys *might* do. Yet, no one here is arguing that parks should be open at night (not that it would do any good here... just saying). On topic... I would not delete the find of anyone who actually found the cache. I may ask that they reword the log to protect the integrity of the cache, the cache owner, or geocaching in general. Also, I would not expect Groundspeak to publicly address the issue of criminal activity anymore than it already has as it should not be part of the game. Any such issues are best handled on a case by case basis until a need arises for something more formal. And what if they tell you to take a flying leap?? Just leave the log to do whatever damage might be done? I stand by my comments. Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 *sigh* I give up! ~* Quote Link to comment
+Singletree Expedition Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's ironic that... A park closing after dark is somewhat of an arbitrary rule that "punishes" the good guys due to what the bad guys *might* do. Yet, no one here is arguing that parks should be open at night (not that it would do any good here... just saying). On topic... I would not delete the find of anyone who actually found the cache. I may ask that they reword the log to protect the integrity of the cache, the cache owner, or geocaching in general. Also, I would not expect Groundspeak to publicly address the issue of criminal activity anymore than it already has as it should not be part of the game. Any such issues are best handled on a case by case basis until a need arises for something more formal. And what if they tell you to take a flying leap?? Just leave the log to do whatever damage might be done? I stand by my comments. In my naïve world everyone gets along. If someone refused to change the log, yeah that I could delete depending upon the extent and intent. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's ironic that... A park closing after dark is somewhat of an arbitrary rule that "punishes" the good guys due to what the bad guys *might* do. Yet, no one here is arguing that parks should be open at night (not that it would do any good here... just saying). On topic... I would not delete the find of anyone who actually found the cache. I may ask that they reword the log to protect the integrity of the cache, the cache owner, or geocaching in general. Also, I would not expect Groundspeak to publicly address the issue of criminal activity anymore than it already has as it should not be part of the game. Any such issues are best handled on a case by case basis until a need arises for something more formal. And what if they tell you to take a flying leap?? Just leave the log to do whatever damage might be done? I stand by my comments. In my naïve world everyone gets along. If someone refused to change the log, yeah that I could delete depending upon the extent and intent. Got some room in your world? Sounds nice in there!! Truly, I would hope most everyone would change the log, knowing your argument would be "that you thought it OK to break a law" should you want to take the issue to GS, I can't imagine too many wanting to go that far! Quote Link to comment
+Singletree Expedition Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 And guys guys....the pros & cons have been very adequately stated, so can we please back off the 'debate' (or any further 'diversions') now & wait for TPTB to make their decision & post it, before it turns into such a mess they won't, or worse, lock the thread unanswered? I'd appreciate it - Thank You! ...apologies for extending a debate that you didn't want extended. Anyway, all the above doesn't exactly address the issue I'm asking about. The central point is, BY posting the hours, am I implying the find MUST be made between X & Y hours, making that an 'Additional Requirement' to log the find? In response to your central point: No, I don't see it that way. I do not view the hours as a requirement for the cache but as a requirement for visiting the park. Some people are authorized to be in the park after hours. You posting the hours is very courteous, but park hours are subject to change and I would use my own judgement when seeking the cache. Quote Link to comment
+uxorious Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 My Cache description plans to include that if the Cache is not placed back in the same place, all logs since my last visit will be deleted(since I will not know which of them moved it, and I do not want to spend hours looking for it each time I need to visit). This is just so wrong. If I read your cache page, find the cache and take the time to carefully return it to the exact spot I found it, you would delete my log. Just because someone three or four cachers later grabbed the cache, signed it and threw it on the ground. If this is considered an ALR I might just have to change my mind and support the ban. I am responsible for only my cache hunt, no one Else's. If someone put it back in the wrong place, that would be your problem not mine. I did my job by following your request and putting it back exactly as I found it. ( of course I always try to get a cache back exactly as I found it, ALR or not. ) Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 And further, if it was within my ability I'd ban the perpetrator from ever claiming the find as his punishment for violating the applicable civil laws or regulations in the first place. Let it forever remain there, on his maps, untouchable & 'in his face', as a reminder to obey the rules or face consequences of not doing so.So the perpetrator couldn't get your cache off his "nearest to home" list, unless he could get you to archive your cache, right? Are you sure that's what you want? Quote Link to comment
+Tobias & Petronella Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I'm going to toss in my two cents here. Take them or leave them, it's your choice. There are a few things I want to say but I won't because I don't want to start a flame war. Instead here are some of my other thoughts. 1. ALR - Additional Logging Requirements - "Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements." This is done after you find the cache and sign the log book. Challenge Caches - "Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state." This is done before you find the cache and sign the log book. As far as I see it, if you ask someone to check in with the park ranger before for they started caching this would be allowed. Or do not search around a church or cemetery at certain times (i.e. Sunday morning, during a wedding or funeral). If they are ask to do something after finding the cache and signing the log book then its an ALR. If they are ask to do something before they find the cache then it is not an ALR. 2. Jerks will be jerks. I don't care who they are. There are both hiders and finders can be a jerk. They feel they can do anything they want, just because who they are and what the feel they can get away with. There are hiders that never ask "the land owner" before putting out a cache. And there are finders that are willing to play "hide and go seek" with the LEO's. Both sides are wrong. An FTF is just that, the first person to find the cache after it has been placed. No one can change history or the facts. If someone broke the rules (law) to get a cache that is their choice. If as cache owner you state in the cache listing that you will turn over the names of those who broke the rules (law) to TPTB thats your choice. If you as CO you try to punish someone because they did something you disagree with, watch out for payback. Your caches could come up missing. The areas that you place them can get trashed. You and your caches now become a target of their "fun". And even if you think you know who is doing it, you won't be able to stop them because they're a Jerk and this is what jerks do. 3. Geocaching is a "family friendly" game. Everything is to reflect that. If someone puts something in their log that you feel is not "family friendly", I see no problem sending them a note stating that kind of post is not allowed and they will need to change it if they want to post it. 4. Groundspeak should give the reviewer a way to post caches on some sort-of timetable or schedule. That way the reviewer could check a box stating when the the cache should post. For example - I let the reviewer know I want my cache to be posted on Tuesday at 3am. They fill out and send in this request on Monday after they get off work. Then like magic, Groundspeak's computers post my listing at Tuesday at 3am. I'm happy that it post when I wanted to, the reviewer is asleep (and happy), and all the night owls (like myself) now have something to do. Again, these are my thoughts and if you agree with them great and if you don't that's fine too. Tobias Edited April 8, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella Quote Link to comment
+Cache O'Plenty Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) The programmed "delayed release" function for the reviewers would solve a portion of the problems here. Not only that, but it would facilitate cache releases supporting events. I'd vote for that if the reviewers would find it helpful. It could be added to the cache description page and we, the hider, would set the date/time. The reviewer would only need to assure that we didn't mess up the entry. Default would be "Immediate" or changeable to some near future date/time. Time could be confusing if multiple timezones are involved. Edited April 8, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Guys, 'timed releases' wouldn't solve ANYthing, so that's not a valid argument, & has no part in this thread. It's not about FTF hounds - that's just an example I used, as most of us are aware of some of their....'fanaticisms'. Idiots can 'jump the fence' 2 weeks later. ~* Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.