What about a voluntary moritorium on sprinkler caches

[Mushtang]

Yep, if you parse and snip enough, you can make anyone's comments appear crazy...good job! None of what you quoted pointed to "imminent" one bit! But nice try! Anyone who can read should be easily understanding of what I said! Implied? I implied that there could be trouble in the future should the wrong person see these...you do know the meaning of imminent, right?

It was suggested by you, and several others, that if real sprinkler heads were damaged in parks and other places, the land owners and managers would no longer allow geocaching in their areas. Is this correct or not?

[+tozainamboku]

Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers.

Where did you see anyone say imminent danger?

There's one guy in this thread that has used the argument that broken sprinkler heads would be a problem with landowners, here:

I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community.

Maybe you should ask him what he meant by "problem". I guess he didn't mean that geocaching would be in any danger at that location eh?

 

And then in a later post he says this:

It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage.

So if he thinks it'll be "too late" I wonder what it'll be "too late" for? Certainly he didn't mean the landowner would ban geocaching from his land? Maybe you'd better ask him that too.

 

Nobody used the exact words "imminent danger", but it was certainly implied by you and several others that if real sprinkler heads were damaged in parks and other places, the land owners and managers would no longer allow geocaching in their areas. This is what Mr. T was referring to.

 

Yep, if you parse and snip enough, you can make anyone's comments appear crazy...good job! None of what you quoted pointed to "imminent" one bit! But nice try! Anyone who can read should be easily understanding of what I said! Implied? I implied that there could be trouble in the future should the wrong person see these...you do know the meaning of imminent, right? In the future would tend to make me think it's not an "imminent" danger! THANKS for playing!

 

Is this your best shot?

I'm somewhat dissapointed in how well you have learned from the brothers. Instead of clarifying your position if I misunderstood something you parse my post. You pick out the word imminent and then accuse me of posting a strong man. Fine. I understood that there is no "imminent" danger. If that is true I an having a bit of problem of why trying education first before asking people to voluntarily stop using a particular type of camouflage isn't the more reasonable approach. I hope I am not mistating your position by saying that you believe that if fewer people were to use sprinkler head camouflage, there would be fewer case of people taking apart real sprinkler heads. It has been argued by others that anything less than a total ban would not likely have the effect you are expecting. The people who take apart sprinkler heads don't think "I know there is a voluntary moratorium so it is unlikely that the cache is in a sprinkler and therefore I won't take apart the sprinkler". The people who take apart sprinklers know that sometime caches are camouflage to look like sprinklers. There are sprinkler where they are looking so they will start to disassemble them to see if any is a cache. A voluntary moratorium will have zero effect on these people.

 

The other issue here is that sprinkler camouflage (or many other similar methods such as fake electrical boxes) are effective ways to hide a cache that muggles don't look at. Geocachers will examine electrical boxes and sprinklers and most can tell the difference between a real one and a cache by looking or just by trying to pick it up. If it isn't connected to anything it is probably a cache. However, there will be some people who believe that any cache that looks like something real will result in some idiot damaging the real thing looking for a cache. So, even though, you have only objected to sprinklers in this thread, my concern is that is leads to a slippery slope where ultimately you could call for the banning of fake rocks because people will move real rocks when looking for a cache and not put them back. -- And before you respond that this is a a strawman argument, yes it is. However it is a legitimate concern, not that Rockin Roddy would want to extend his argument to apply to other types of caches, but that someone almost certainly will. (In fact I'm a bit surprised that Vinny hasn't called for a voluntary moratorium on fake rocks).

[Trinity's Crew]

However it is a legitimate concern, not that Rockin Roddy would want to extend his argument to apply to other types of caches, but that someone almost certainly will. (In fact I'm a bit surprised that Vinny hasn't called for a voluntary moratorium on fake rocks).

For the record, I'm all FOR more fake dog poop caches. When said poop pile ISN'T the actual cache it will teach those sprinkler breakers a lesson they won't soon forget.

[+roziecakes]

I think the fake dogpoop caches are hilarious!

 

-Rozie

[Clan Riffster]

I've looked in a LOT of places where the cache wasn't before finding the place where the cache was.

Yup! I've been checking sprinkler heads almost from day 1, due to the fact that they are there, (near ground zero), and conceivably could contain the cache. This was years before I actually found a true sprinkler head cache. Of all those sprinkler heads I've checked, I have not felt the need to damage any of them. Will I hide one? Probably not. I think that they, like electrical box caches and other similar type hides, have a potential for creating problems, even if this potential is slight. I'd rather avoid this potential.

I don't think the sky is falling... yet.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+KBI]

I've looked in a LOT of places where the cache wasn't before finding the place where the cache was.

Yup! I've been checking sprinkler heads almost from day 1, due to the fact that they are there, (near ground zero), and conceivably could contain the cache. This was years before I actually found a true sprinkler head cache. Of all those sprinkler heads I've checked, I have not felt the need to damage any of them.

I don't think the sky is falling... yet.

In my experience that puts you in the majority.

 

Something just occurred to me: The arguments in this thread work against all caches, not just fake sprinkler heads. For example: Buried caches are not allowed – but what’s to prevent a cacher with a combination of inexperience, bad judgment and determination from digging holes anyway?

 

Newbie #1: "Where the heck IS this dadgum thing? It says here that the last five people found it, but that it’s got a high difficulty. This park just doesn’t have that many hiding places. We’ve looked EVERYWHERE already."

 

Newbie #2: "Hey ......... maybe they ......... buried the container!”

 

Newbie #1: (wide eyed) "Yeeeeeeah! Maybe they DID! Buried treasure! Hey, wait right here, I’ve got a shovel back in the truck."

 

It has been shown repeatedly that an actual fake sprinkler head cache need not exist in order for a cache seeker to become encouraged to explore potentially fake sprinkler heads.

 

It follows, then, that the rule against buried caches doesn’t really prevent cache seekers from digging holes either.

 

Maybe we should push for a moratorium on ALL geocaching.

[Trinity's Crew]

I've never found a fake sprinkler head cache. I HAVE inspected sprinkler heads to see if they WERE the cache. I really don't think I knew about fake sprinkler hides the first time I checked one but I frequent the forums a lot so I can't be sure.

 

<DISCLAIMER>

 

No sprinkler heads were harmed in the finding of the cache.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+Rockin Roddy]

Those who call for voluntary moratorium on these caches seem to see that geocaching is in imminent danger of being banned by land managers who find a broken sprinker head that they may blame on geocachers.

Where did you see anyone say imminent danger?

There's one guy in this thread that has used the argument that broken sprinkler heads would be a problem with landowners, here:

I'd hate to see it become widespread since this would certainly become a problem with landowners and the caching community.

Maybe you should ask him what he meant by "problem". I guess he didn't mean that geocaching would be in any danger at that location eh?

 

And then in a later post he says this:

It'll be too late once the landowner believes (doesn't have to prove it) the cacher did the damage.

So if he thinks it'll be "too late" I wonder what it'll be "too late" for? Certainly he didn't mean the landowner would ban geocaching from his land? Maybe you'd better ask him that too.

 

Nobody used the exact words "imminent danger", but it was certainly implied by you and several others that if real sprinkler heads were damaged in parks and other places, the land owners and managers would no longer allow geocaching in their areas. This is what Mr. T was referring to.

 

Yep, if you parse and snip enough, you can make anyone's comments appear crazy...good job! None of what you quoted pointed to "imminent" one bit! But nice try! Anyone who can read should be easily understanding of what I said! Implied? I implied that there could be trouble in the future should the wrong person see these...you do know the meaning of imminent, right? In the future would tend to make me think it's not an "imminent" danger! THANKS for playing!

 

Is this your best shot?

I'm somewhat dissapointed in how well you have learned from the brothers. Instead of clarifying your position if I misunderstood something you parse my post. You pick out the word imminent and then accuse me of posting a strong man. Fine. I understood that there is no "imminent" danger. If that is true I an having a bit of problem of why trying education first before asking people to voluntarily stop using a particular type of camouflage isn't the more reasonable approach. I hope I am not mistating your position by saying that you believe that if fewer people were to use sprinkler head camouflage, there would be fewer case of people taking apart real sprinkler heads. It has been argued by others that anything less than a total ban would not likely have the effect you are expecting. The people who take apart sprinkler heads don't think "I know there is a voluntary moratorium so it is unlikely that the cache is in a sprinkler and therefore I won't take apart the sprinkler". The people who take apart sprinklers know that sometime caches are camouflage to look like sprinklers. There are sprinkler where they are looking so they will start to disassemble them to see if any is a cache. A voluntary moratorium will have zero effect on these people.

 

The other issue here is that sprinkler camouflage (or many other similar methods such as fake electrical boxes) are effective ways to hide a cache that muggles don't look at. Geocachers will examine electrical boxes and sprinklers and most can tell the difference between a real one and a cache by looking or just by trying to pick it up. If it isn't connected to anything it is probably a cache. However, there will be some people who believe that any cache that looks like something real will result in some idiot damaging the real thing looking for a cache. So, even though, you have only objected to sprinklers in this thread, my concern is that is leads to a slippery slope where ultimately you could call for the banning of fake rocks because people will move real rocks when looking for a cache and not put them back. -- And before you respond that this is a a strawman argument, yes it is. However it is a legitimate concern, not that Rockin Roddy would want to extend his argument to apply to other types of caches, but that someone almost certainly will. (In fact I'm a bit surprised that Vinny hasn't called for a voluntary moratorium on fake rocks).

 

Toz, my friend, I believe we agreed on this waaay back before the latest round of wild postings by a few here. Education and not placing these caches will definitely have a good effect, those voluntarily not placing such caches can also spread the word and help. It's when we get these strawmans like all caches are potentially bad and need banned type arguments when I don't see a reason to actually defend a position. When I parse the comments though, I do try to take them in contest unlike some!

[+KBI]

Toz, my friend, I believe we agreed on this waaay back before the latest round of wild postings by a few here. Education and not placing these caches will definitely have a good effect ...

No consensus has been reached on that point. Many well-reason posts have shown that neither "education" about fake sprinkler heads nor the suppression of fake sprinkler heads will likely have any meaningful effect on those who would tear up real ones.

 

It's when we get these strawmans like all caches are potentially bad and need banned type arguments when I don't see a reason to actually defend a position.

That’s not a strawman. A 'strawman' is when one argues against a fictitious position instead of the stated one.The term you’re looking for is 'reductio ad absurdum.' It’s when one disproves an argument by following its implications to a logical, yet absurd and unsound, consequence.

 

And by ridiculing my statement about banning ALL caches, you have neatly supported my argument against the suppression of fake sprinkler head caches:

 

It has been shown repeatedly that an actual fake sprinkler head cache need not exist in order for a cache seeker to become encouraged to explore potentially fake sprinkler heads.

 

It follows, then, that the rule against buried caches doesn’t really prevent cache seekers from digging holes either.

 

Maybe we should push for a moratorium on ALL geocaching.

Reductio ad absurdum. If shutting down the entire game because of a rare few vandals is absurd, then so is shutting down a specific portion of the game because of a rare few vandals.

 

If a certain specific cache is encouraging undue damage to a certain specific location, then maybe that cache should be modified or archived. I have said from the beginning that thoughtful cache placement can, and does, limit the problem.

 

But a ban on ALL fake sprinkler head hides, voluntary or otherwise, would make the mistake of applying a bulldozer solution to a flyswatter problem. It would punish large numbers of innocent cachers while having little, if any, effect on the bad guys.

[Clan Riffster]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Boy Howdy! That's a butt load of quotes! I wonder if that's a record?

Looks kinda like a bifurcated pyramid!

Edited April 26, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Rockin Roddy]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Boy Howdy! That's a butt load of quotes! I wonder if that's a record?

Looks kinda like a bifurcated pyramid!

 

Nope, this is the record!!

 

 

For now!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Toz, my friend, I believe we agreed on this waaay back before the latest round of wild postings by a few here. Education and not placing these caches will definitely have a good effect ...

No consensus has been reached on that point. Many well-reason posts have shown that neither "education" about fake sprinkler heads nor the suppression of fake sprinkler heads will likely have any meaningful effect on those who would tear up real ones.

 

It's when we get these strawmans like all caches are potentially bad and need banned type arguments when I don't see a reason to actually defend a position.

That’s not a strawman. A 'strawman' is when one argues against a fictitious position instead of the stated one.The term you’re looking for is 'reductio ad absurdum.' It’s when one disproves an argument by following its implications to a logical, yet absurd and unsound, consequence.

 

And by ridiculing my statement about banning ALL caches, you have neatly supported my argument against the suppression of fake sprinkler head caches:

 

It has been shown repeatedly that an actual fake sprinkler head cache need not exist in order for a cache seeker to become encouraged to explore potentially fake sprinkler heads.

 

It follows, then, that the rule against buried caches doesn’t really prevent cache seekers from digging holes either.

 

Maybe we should push for a moratorium on ALL geocaching.

Reductio ad absurdum. If shutting down the entire game because of a rare few vandals is absurd, then so is shutting down a specific portion of the game because of a rare few vandals.

 

If a certain specific cache is encouraging undue damage to a certain specific location, then maybe that cache should be modified or archived. I have said from the beginning that thoughtful cache placement can, and does, limit the problem.

 

But a ban on ALL fake sprinkler head hides, voluntary or otherwise, would make the mistake of applying a bulldozer solution to a flyswatter problem. It would punish large numbers of innocent cachers while having little, if any, effect on the bad guys.

 

Two points...first is that I said Toz and I agreed, which I believe we did.

 

Second, punishing who? What's the punishment, and how can a voluntary moritorium punish the innocent or anyone for that matter?

[+KBI]

Two points...first is that I said Toz and I agreed, which I believe we did.

Did I say you didn't? What has that got to do with what I posted? I don't understand.

 

Second, punishing who? What's the punishment, and how can a voluntary moritorium punish the innocent or anyone for that matter?

Sorry, I assumed that part would be obvious. My mistake.

 

It goes like this: If the moratorium happens, and a certain fun type of cache in question goes away systemwide, then those who enjoy them – especially those who have never found one, and who might have gotten a real thrill out of their very first one, as I did – won’t get to enjoy them at all. That represents a very real loss.

 

Yet those who are clever enough to inspect sprinkler heads as potential cache locations will continue to inspect them. And a tiny yet non-zero minority of those folks will cause damage. That part will remain the same.

 

Are you still convinced that a moratorium will have the desired effect? Not me. All I see are unintended consequences.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Two points...first is that I said Toz and I agreed, which I believe we did.

Did I say you didn't? What has that got to do with what I posted? I don't understand.

 

Second, punishing who? What's the punishment, and how can a voluntary moritorium punish the innocent or anyone for that matter?

Sorry, I assumed that part would be obvious. My mistake.

 

It goes like this: If the moratorium happens, and a certain fun type of cache in question goes away systemwide, then those who enjoy them – especially those who have never found one, and who might have gotten a real thrill out of their very first one, as I did – won’t get to enjoy them at all. That represents a very real loss.

 

Yet those who are clever enough to inspect sprinkler heads as potential cache locations will continue to inspect them. And a tiny yet non-zero minority of those folks will cause damage. That part will remain the same.

 

Are you still convinced that a moratorium will have the desired effect? Not me. All I see are unintended consequences.

 

I'll counter then by asking what your post had to do with my comment?

 

I'm not buying your argument that people are going to experience a real loss, I can't imagine people all over the world waiting anxiously for the next cache to come out so they can inspect the listing for any hint it's a sprinkler head cache. I doubt there's anyone out there ticked they haven't had the pleasure of making a sprinkler head cache, and I really don't buy the "especially those who have never found one" argument, come on!

 

Care to name any of these unintentional consequences?

[+KBI]

I'll counter then by asking what your post had to do with my comment?

 

I'm not buying your argument that people are going to experience a real loss, I can't imagine people all over the world waiting anxiously for the next cache to come out so they can inspect the listing for any hint it's a sprinkler head cache. I doubt there's anyone out there ticked they haven't had the pleasure of making a sprinkler head cache, and I really don't buy the "especially those who have never found one" argument, come on!

 

Care to name any of these unintentional consequences?

Not really.

 

It's all in the thread. Go back and read it if you missed it. Repeating myself again at this point would only serve to annoy everyone involved, including me.

 

I came into this discussion with a point of view on this thing, I have explained my point of view in detail ... and nothing you have said so far has come anywhere close to changing my mind. If you’re trying to sell me on an idea, then I regret to tell you that what you've done thus far doesn’t seem to be working.

[+tozainamboku]

Two points...first is that I said Toz and I agreed, which I believe we did.

Did I say you didn't? What has that got to do with what I posted? I don't understand.

 

Second, punishing who? What's the punishment, and how can a voluntary moritorium punish the innocent or anyone for that matter?

Sorry, I assumed that part would be obvious. My mistake.

 

It goes like this: If the moratorium happens, and a certain fun type of cache in question goes away systemwide, then those who enjoy them – especially those who have never found one, and who might have gotten a real thrill out of their very first one, as I did – won’t get to enjoy them at all. That represents a very real loss.

 

Yet those who are clever enough to inspect sprinkler heads as potential cache locations will continue to inspect them. And a tiny yet non-zero minority of those folks will cause damage. That part will remain the same.

 

Are you still convinced that a moratorium will have the desired effect? Not me. All I see are unintended consequences.

Well I don't think I agree with Rockin Roddy. My opinion is closer to KBIs. We were going back and forth over whether I was putting words in Rockin Roddy's mouth so I kept trying to restate his argument in my own words until he says he agrees with me. Now at least I think I understand his points. Given that, KBI's arguments are not very convincing. Since it is voluntary moratorium nothing really goes away. If someone really wants to hide a fake sprinkler cache they can still hide a fake sprinkler. Of course those in favor of a moratorium, hope that most cachers will not hide new sprinkler caches. Ultimately there will be fewer fake sprinkler head caches. Those who favor a moratorium probably believe that if there are fewer fake sprinklers, fewer people will bother real sprinklers because either 1) never having seen a sprinkler cache they won't look at sprinklers or 2) they know when searching for a cache where there are real sprinklers, the chances are that the cache is not going to be a fake sprinkler. I think that those who want a voluntary moratorium also agree that even if there were a ban you would still have some people damaging sprinklers. What their argument is that if there are fewer fake sprinklers you'd have fewer problems with real sprinklers. Nobody seems to believe you can make damaged sprinkler heads go away completely. The argument comes down whether a voluntary moratorium will result in a reduction of the number of sprinkler heads damaged by geocachers (i.e. more fake sprinkler heads encourage more vandalism) and whether the benefits of using sprinkler heads as a camouflage technique outweighs the disadvantage caused by their encouraging irresponsible geocachers to damage real sprinkler heads.

Edited April 27, 2009 by tozainamboku

[Trinity's Crew]

Two points...first is that I said Toz and I agreed, which I believe we did.

Did I say you didn't? What has that got to do with what I posted? I don't understand.

 

Second, punishing who? What's the punishment, and how can a voluntary moritorium punish the innocent or anyone for that matter?

Sorry, I assumed that part would be obvious. My mistake.

 

It goes like this: If the moratorium happens, and a certain fun type of cache in question goes away systemwide, then those who enjoy them – especially those who have never found one, and who might have gotten a real thrill out of their very first one, as I did – won’t get to enjoy them at all. That represents a very real loss.

 

Yet those who are clever enough to inspect sprinkler heads as potential cache locations will continue to inspect them. And a tiny yet non-zero minority of those folks will cause damage. That part will remain the same.

 

Are you still convinced that a moratorium will have the desired effect? Not me. All I see are unintended consequences.

Well I don't think I agree with Rockin Roddy. My opinion is closer to KBIs. We were going back and forth over whether I was putting words in Rockin Roddy's mouth so I kept trying to restate his argument in my own words until he says he agrees with me. Now at least I think I understand his points. Given that, KBI's arguments are not very convincing. Since it is voluntary moratorium nothing really goes away. If someone really wants to hide a fake sprinkler cache they can still hide a fake sprinkler. Of course those in favor of a moratorium, hope that most cachers will not hide new sprinkler caches. Ultimately there will be fewer fake sprinkler head caches. Those who favor a moratorium probably believe that if there are fewer fake sprinklers, fewer people will bother real sprinklers because either 1) never having seen a sprinkler cache they won't look at sprinklers or 2) they know when searching for a cache where there are real sprinklers, the chances are that the cache is not going to be a fake sprinkler. I think that those who want a voluntary moratorium also agree that even if there were a ban you would still have some people damaging sprinklers. What their argument is that if there are fewer fake sprinklers you'd have fewer problems with real sprinklers. Nobody seems to believe you can make damaged sprinkler heads go away completely. The argument comes down whether a voluntary moratorium will result in a reduction of the number of sprinkler heads damaged by geocachers (i.e. more fake sprinkler heads encourage more vandalism) and whether the benefits of using sprinkler heads as a camouflage technique outweighs the disadvantage caused by their encouraging irresponsible geocachers to damage real sprinkler heads.

The problem is that eliminating fake sprinkler heads hasn't eliminated even one of the irresponsible cachers who broke the sprinkler heads in a frenzied, careless quest to find the cache. Most cachers who break sprinkler heads probably cache in a generally irresponsible way. I've never found a sprinkler head cache but I HAVE looked. Even though I had never looked at a real sprinkler head before I didn't break anything while inspecting it.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'll counter then by asking what your post had to do with my comment?

 

I'm not buying your argument that people are going to experience a real loss, I can't imagine people all over the world waiting anxiously for the next cache to come out so they can inspect the listing for any hint it's a sprinkler head cache. I doubt there's anyone out there ticked they haven't had the pleasure of making a sprinkler head cache, and I really don't buy the "especially those who have never found one" argument, come on!

 

Care to name any of these unintentional consequences?

Not really.

 

It's all in the thread. Go back and read it if you missed it. Repeating myself again at this point would only serve to annoy everyone involved, including me.

 

I came into this discussion with a point of view on this thing, I have explained my point of view in detail ... and nothing you have said so far has come anywhere close to changing my mind. If you’re trying to sell me on an idea, then I regret to tell you that what you've done thus far doesn’t seem to be working.

 

The feelings are mutual then, I'm not buying what you're pushing either! Remembering the whole debate is over a voluntary moratorium, I see nothing of an unintentional consequence and since you don't want to repeat them (I've read this whole thread and didn't see anything that held water), I'll just assume that was your way of saying you've got nothing!

 

I see Toz has already said much the same that I feel though...

 

Toz, sprinkle in a bit of education, a bit of common sense (label your caches if need be, post info such as "no need to check sprinkler heads, etc), I think the reduction in problems would truly make a difference. As you said, I've no false hopes of a complete end to it all, but the problem is reduced (hopefully by a great deal).

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

The problem is that eliminating fake sprinkler heads hasn't eliminated even one of the irresponsible cachers who broke the sprinkler heads in a frenzied, careless quest to find the cache. Most cachers who break sprinkler heads probably cache in a generally irresponsible way. I've never found a sprinkler head cache but I HAVE looked. Even though I had never looked at a real sprinkler head before I didn't break anything while inspecting it.

 

That's where the education comes in. But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up. Of course, responsible placement would help (we know some will still want to place these cache types), there's where the common sense kicks in!

[Trinity's Crew]

I agree with KBI et al. that the problem is ultimately with the seeker, not the hider. However, we seem to have enough seekers who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate search techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. Sprinkler-head hides are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage seekers to use inappropriate searching techniques.

Hmmm.

 

I've pondered this post, but .... nope, I still can't agree with that viewpoint.

 

If you truly agree with me and my et-als that it is the seeker -- not the hider -- who is the responsible party, then why would you simultaneously attempt to excuse the vandalism by using a term like "attractive nuisance?" That term was invented by lawyers to defend children -- children who are presumed to be too immature to use good judgement.

 

Google:

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to

children

trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract

children

who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.

The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

Sure, some cachers are actual children, but if they are too young to know better and are out caching without supervision then that is the fault of their parents. NOT the cache owner.

 

Your use of the term "attractive nuisance" presupposes that no cache seeker should ever be expected to know any better than to rip up irrigation equipment. You are excusing inexcusable behavior, and have put the onus back on the hider. I still disagree with that. I prefer not to give excuses and free passes to those who really should know better.

 

Blaming a cache owner for the destructive behavior of vandals, by claiming the target was simply too 'attractive' for the poor seeker victim to control himself, is a bit like blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist. "It's her fault. She was guilty of being too attractive. He couldn't help it. She was asking for it." Should we now call for a "voluntary moratorium" on attractive women, and suggest that they might want to ugly it up a bit? Or should we instead place 100% of the responsibility where it rightly belongs?

 

In fact, let's listen to the above quoted reasoning once again, this time with that analogy in mind, and the fallacy will become clear:

 

I agree ... that the problem is ultimately with the [rapist], not the [female]. However, we seem to have enough [rapists] who are unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate [dating] techniques that I believe a voluntary moratorium, or at least some disapprobation, is called for. [Pretty girls] are a kind of "attractive nuisance" in that they encourage [rapists] to use inappropriate [physical contact].

I'm not a fan of additional restrictions. Groundspeak will come up with more of their own but the problem with the rapist analogy is that the cache owner didn't get raped. The unwitting land owner did. As the cache owner you introduced her to the rapist. The best case scenario is that you didn't know he was a rapist. The worst case is that you did know but introduced him anyway. Either way the victim still got raped and you helped to facilitate it.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

The problem is that eliminating fake sprinkler heads hasn't eliminated even one of the irresponsible cachers who broke the sprinkler heads in a frenzied, careless quest to find the cache. Most cachers who break sprinkler heads probably cache in a generally irresponsible way. I've never found a sprinkler head cache but I HAVE looked. Even though I had never looked at a real sprinkler head before I didn't break anything while inspecting it.

 

That's where the education comes in. But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up. Of course, responsible placement would help (we know some will still want to place these cache types), there's where the common sense kicks in!

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

 

Edit: Fixed quotes

Edited April 27, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

The problem is that eliminating fake sprinkler heads hasn't eliminated even one of the irresponsible cachers who broke the sprinkler heads in a frenzied, careless quest to find the cache. Most cachers who break sprinkler heads probably cache in a generally irresponsible way. I've never found a sprinkler head cache but I HAVE looked. Even though I had never looked at a real sprinkler head before I didn't break anything while inspecting it.

 

That's where the education comes in. But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up. Of course, responsible placement would help (we know some will still want to place these cache types), there's where the common sense kicks in!

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

 

Edit: Fixed quotes

 

You could be right. What's the alternative then...do nothing and let the bad ruin it for all? Or try and see how it goes and maybe go from there??

 

I'm not one for hoping for the best, I don't like the idea of waiting to see if the ignorant get any smarter on their own...I'm for trying!

[Mushtang]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

 

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

[+KBI]

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

You could be right. What's the alternative then...do nothing and let the bad ruin it for all?

When sprinkler head vandals succeed in single-handedly shutting down this hobby, please come find me and I will happily -- and publicly -- say that you were right all along.

 

So far, however, I don’t see that happening. You are welcome to continue trying to convince me otherwise.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

You could be right. What's the alternative then...do nothing and let the bad ruin it for all?

When sprinkler head vandals succeed in single-handedly shutting down this hobby, please come find me and I will happily -- and publicly -- say that you were right all along.

 

So far, however, I don’t see that happening. You are welcome to continue trying to convince me otherwise.

 

Why must you continually carry things to such an end...is this a strawman??? It would be nice if people could think a bit more normally and see that there's a problem which could get bigger...not like your thought that you need to wait until there's no hope in order to recognize the potential! You do realize this could be a potential localized problem and not the end to ALL...right?? Yep, if I remember the recent post explaining strawman, this would be one!

 

I have no need to convince you, you act like I do? I am happy to do my part, you can do whatever you think!

[+Rockin Roddy]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

 

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

 

This is only worthy of a or two!

[Trinity's Crew]

What's the alternative then...do nothing and let the bad ruin it for all? Or try and see how it goes and maybe go from there??

 

I'm not one for hoping for the best, I don't like the idea of waiting to see if the ignorant get any smarter on their own...I'm for trying!

 

I never suggested we do nothing. THAT is a straw man argument. I only pointed out that a moratorium on SHCs (tired of typing sprinkler head cache), voluntary or otherwise, won’t stop selfish morons from being selfish morons. There are plenty of suggestions in this thread that will help minimize the destruction to varying degrees without a moratorium. I assume you’ve read the thread and I don’t feel like rehashing them.

 

Based on numerous other threads I've seen in this forum SHCs are only one of many containers that could cause potential confusion or harm. Do you only have a problem with SHCs or do you want to try to place a moratorium on other cache containers as well?

 

Edit to fix a quote mess I made.

Third Time's the charm!

Edited April 27, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[Mushtang]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

 

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

This is only worthy of a or two!

Your counter points are well thought out as always, and presented in a logical, lucid manor. You've almost got me convinced that we should all agree to stop hiding sprinkler head caches, and this will avoid many problems in the future.

[+Rockin Roddy]

What's the alternative then...do nothing and let the bad ruin it for all? Or try and see how it goes and maybe go from there??

 

I'm not one for hoping for the best, I don't like the idea of waiting to see if the ignorant get any smarter on their own...I'm for trying!

 

I never suggested we do nothing. THAT is a straw man argument. I only pointed out that a moratorium on SHCs (tired of typing sprinkler head cache), voluntary or otherwise, won’t stop selfish morons from being selfish morons. There are plenty of suggestions in this thread that will help minimize the destruction to varying degrees without a moratorium. I assume you’ve read the thread and I don’t feel like rehashing them.

 

Based on numerous other threads I've seen in this forum SHCs are only one of many containers that could cause potential confusion or harm. Do you only have a problem with SHCs or do you want to try to place a moratorium on other cache containers as well?

 

Edit to fix a quote mess I made.

Third Time's the charm!

 

I've already decided never to place an electric box hide, a spreinkler hide, a birdhouse, nest or whatever type of such hides etc...so no, it's not just SHC! I'm glad my thought of your post was off-based, I thought this was another call to simply do nothing but pretend it's not a problem!

[+Rockin Roddy]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

 

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

This is only worthy of a or two!

Your counter points are well thought out as always, and presented in a logical, lucid manor. You've almost got me convinced that we should all agree to stop hiding sprinkler head caches, and this will avoid many problems in the future.

 

Tell me, would rehashing the whole thing do anything to change your mind? I didn't think so, so you get the old If you feel you could change your mind, there's plenty already in print for you to consider!

[4wheelin_fool]

Too many assumptions are being made here. As of late, sprinker systems everywhere are being intentionally destroyed by a hard core, cultish band of Aquaphobics who believe that water is the embodiment of all evil. Since the Sun has been traditionally used to symbolically represent God in many ancient cultures, the resulting (and irrational) belief is that water is naturally the spawn of satan. Most hard core aquaphobics will destroy and disable any sprinker system on sight, and just because there are some that are damaged, does not necessarily mean that it is geocaching related. Corporate aquaphobics are well known to dump chemical waste into rivers, and a few religious ones will say that all humans are evil because of the large percentage of water in the human body. If you feel at any time as if an aquaphobic is chasing you, just temporarily park next to a fire hydrant for safety.

 

[Mushtang]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

This is only worthy of a or two!

Your counter points are well thought out as always, and presented in a logical, lucid manor. You've almost got me convinced that we should all agree to stop hiding sprinkler head caches, and this will avoid many problems in the future.

Tell me, would rehashing the whole thing do anything to change your mind? I didn't think so, so you get the old If you feel you could change your mind, there's plenty already in print for you to consider!

Another couple of very logical reasons you've given there. I tell ya Roddy, your debate skills are superior to anyone I've ever seen. It's impossible to counter such well presented arguments supporting the claim that a voluntary moratorium would actually make a difference. I bow to your unrivaled cleverness.

[+Rockin Roddy]

But, I would also add that, with the removal of the root of the problem , the problem-makers (cachers tearing the sprinklers apart) would not have a reason to tear those sprinklers up.

There's no reason to tear them up now. The ones being destroyed are done by people with no reason, that just don't know how to search.

Most of these same cachers will turn over rocks, tear stone walls apart, pull down birdhouses, etc... They are generally irresponsible and you can't/won't stop them by eliminating one type of cache container.

Exactly!!!

 

A ban on sprinkler heads, voluntary or otherwise, will have very little effect on 1) non caches getting inspected before the real caches are found, and 2) real sprinkler heads being destroyed by irresponsible seekers before they find the real cache.

This is only worthy of a or two!

Your counter points are well thought out as always, and presented in a logical, lucid manor. You've almost got me convinced that we should all agree to stop hiding sprinkler head caches, and this will avoid many problems in the future.

Tell me, would rehashing the whole thing do anything to change your mind? I didn't think so, so you get the old If you feel you could change your mind, there's plenty already in print for you to consider!

Another couple of very logical reasons you've given there. I tell ya Roddy, your debate skills are superior to anyone I've ever seen. It's impossible to counter such well presented arguments supporting the claim that a voluntary moratorium would actually make a difference. I bow to your unrivaled cleverness.

 

If you're looking for a rise, you'll find none is coming, so please stop stirring the pot and wasting yours and everyone else's time! Now, if you've got something other than sarcasm and belittling posts, maybe someone will find reason to reply in kind!