Don't use my cache for your challenge!

[+sbell111]

over and over people don't seem to be reading what it is that i'm writing. either that or reading comprehension has sunk to such a level that we might as well give up the written word altogether.

There are other possibilities.

 

Perhaps your posts aren't very clear.

Perhaps your posting style makes it difficult to decipher your posts.

Perhaps people understand your posts just fine and simply disagree with you.

[+flask]

over and over people don't seem to be reading what it is that i'm writing. either that or reading comprehension has sunk to such a level that we might as well give up the written word altogether.

There are other possibilities.

 

Perhaps your posts aren't very clear.

Perhaps your posting style makes it difficult to decipher your posts.

Perhaps people understand your posts just fine and simply disagree with you.

 

it's always a pleasure to have you snipe for the sake of sniping.

 

it makes me happy because you're just not bright enough to carry it off well. if i didn't have you around, i wouldn't get to feel so completely and obviously superior in every way.

 

is that clear enough for you?

are you having trouble deciphering me?

 

would you like me to be clearer?

[+mtn-man]

it makes me happy because you're just not bright enough to carry it off well. if i didn't have you around, i wouldn't get to feel so completely and obviously superior in every way.

 

is that clear enough for you?

are you having trouble deciphering me?

 

would you like me to be clearer?

I think we can do without the personal insults. They do not make you look superior. Quite the opposite actually.

[+bflentje]

if this loud and (to me) entertaining debate prompts one person to write a decent log where he otherwise might not have done, i have accomplished all i hoped to do.

 

You might start by first practicing some puncutation, er, I mean, using your shift key, if you intend others to improve their writing skills. In other words, you're entitled to you opinion. But for gosh sakes, practice what you preach. And that ain't meant as a slam..

[+Unkle Fester]

Sometime in the recent past, a cache hider in my "extended" caching area posted the following to all of their cache listings. I don't want to single them out or give away their name as that's not the point (and I request that posters refrain from doing so), but here's the text:

 

DavidMac,

 

Can you please get ahold of the cache owner in question and ask him to come here and settle this topic for us? We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

I think at this point getting the CO in here would be like getting a goat into my back yard. Lots of kicking and screaming.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Some of the posters here are pretending that we all of the opinion that simply using a cache as a stepping stone is rude are foaming at the mouths and hopping mad. You're not, but we can still recognize it as rude. We certainly are not going to deny that it's rude or pretend it's okay simply because you can't stop it.

 

 

I think you're pretending that we're pretending. Now, are you marginalizing our opinions and making us sound like over-imaginative children, or is that just the Juicy Juice going to my head?

 

For the record, I think you're coming across as more elitist than foaming and hopping. Even the "using a cache as a stepping stone" verbiage is kind of, well, snooty.

[+Avernar]

What is wrong with that?

Nothing as long as the caches are decent. But if they're tossed under a skirt or behind a dumpster simply to have a smilie in a town that starts with "Q" then it fully illustrates a point. Caching for the sake of something other that the cache. That seems to be what the CO in the OP was talking about.

So the drive from the big city in the country to get to that small town is worthless too? I just spent sunday afternoon and evening driving around the countryside doing several grab and go series. The cache hides themselves weren't hard to find or super special by themselves. But the fresh air, nice scenery and peace and quite made the whole thing vastly enjoyable.

 

A lot of caches are placed for reasons other than the cache:

• A nice hike down a forest trail
  
• A scenic overview
  
• A historical site/object
  
• And dozens of other reasons
  

Doesn't matter if the cache is an ammo box or a nano. The cache owner had other reasons for placing a cache there other than for the sake of placing a cache.

 

Now here's the part that a lot of people seem to not get: Owner's List of Reasons for going to a location are not necessary the same as the Finder's List of Reasons for a going to that location.

 

Personally, if someone finds one of my caches for whatever reason (drive in the country, challenges, +1, whatever) as long as they had fun and I added to that fun even in the most minuscule way, it was worth putting the cache out.

 

Incidentally, one of my pet peeves is people NOT logging their finds at all. Negative feedback is still feedback. It'll help me improve my future hides.

[+Renegade Knight]

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

.

snip

.

So, you don't have to "get it." Just know that some of us are sensitive to it.

 

That's what this is about??? My gosh, get over yourselves.

Exactly. To think that some folks just can't seem to bring themselves to honor a simple reqeust because they are so full of themselves that they clearly can't see that it's ok to pay a little respect and use another cache for their own purposes.

I think that most people would happily honor all reasonable requests. The OP's issue, however, was neither reasonable, nor a request.

 

Perhaps not, reasonable, and perhaps a demand. Yet easy enough to honor without much effort at all.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Perhaps not, reasonable, and perhaps a demand. Yet easy enough to honor without much effort at all.

 

It was not a demand. It was a threat. I honor nearly all requests by cache owners, including those who ask that my log be on a specific topic. I do my very best to honor all requests made by travel bug owners, including those that request rather intimate details in my logs. I will go out of my way and make a great effort to honor someone's request.

 

However, I don't accede to threats. Allowing other people to control one through threats is a mistake, in my opinion. Where exactly does it stop?

 

The fact that you and others here find the threats the cache owner chose to make to be acceptable speaks volumes.

 

Carolyn

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

 

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

 

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

[+sbell111]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

Cache owners can delete logs in a few circumstances. I'm pretty sure that this is limited to bogus logs, spoilers, and potty logs.

 

Of course, the cache described by the OP is an ALR, so it doesn't really matter. It's the worse kind of ALR, in my opinion because it actually is an attempt to control not only things that people do while caching, but the reasons behind caching and any future actions of the cachers. It's a silly demand, in my opinion, and one that I would happily disobey.

Edited June 16, 2009 by sbell111

[jholly]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

Cache owners can delete logs in a few circumstances. I'm pretty sure that this is limited to bogus logs, spoilers, and potty logs.

 

Of course, the cache described by the OP is an ALR, so it doesn't really matter. It's the worse kind of ALR, in my opinion because it actually is an attempt to control not only things that people do while caching, but the reasons behind caching and any future actions of the cachers. It's a silly demand, in my opinion, and one that I would happily disobey.

 

actually I would just put the CO caches on my ignore list and go on caching.

 

Jim

[+Renegade Knight]

...However, I don't accede to threats. Allowing other people to control one through threats is a mistake, in my opinion. Where exactly does it stop?

 

The fact that you and others here find the threats the cache owner chose to make to be acceptable speaks volumes.

 

Carolyn

 

Yes it does. I can honor the request simply enough and then I then perhaps I have a little goodwill. With goodwill perhaps one day I can make a request they be a tad less harsh.

 

Keep in mind there is a difference between honoring a request, and finding it acceptable. I think it's pathetic that I need a passport to get back into my own country. However I will honor the request, get a passport and push against some of these inane rules coming out of DC.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

Your impression is correct. An owner can delete for any reason subject only to the ALR rule. That said if an owner abuses the option this site can and somtimes does interceed and restore a log.

 

For example. If you include a spoiler in your log I can delete your log. Normally I would email and ask you remove it on the rare cache that I care about spoilers. Normally folks have complied with no problem.

 

I had this same request made of me once on a Did Not Find log. Somehow I posted a spoiler on a cache that I didn't find. I made the tweak and laughed because of the irony.

 

You can add foul language, racism, harrasment, spoilers, and other things to the list of reasons an owner can delete a log. (sbell beat me to to the list and had bogus logs as another reason). I'm sure other things can come up like SPAM...want a bigger cache? come to www.manlymanmagnumcache.com and....

Edited June 16, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+The Ravens]

I wouldn't say an owner can delete a log for "any" reason. If that were the case there wouldn't be a need the "restore log" request. Language, racism, harassment, spoilers are the only reasons I can think of off hand.

[+Unkle Fester]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

Cache owners can delete logs in a few circumstances. I'm pretty sure that this is limited to bogus logs, spoilers, and potty logs.

 

Of course, the cache described by the OP is an ALR, so it doesn't really matter. It's the worse kind of ALR, in my opinion because it actually is an attempt to control not only things that people do while caching, but the reasons behind caching and any future actions of the cachers. It's a silly demand, in my opinion, and one that I would happily disobey.

 

actually I would just put the CO caches on my ignore list and go on caching.

 

Jim

I'd do just the opposite, I'd log the find, even for a challenge I was working. If my log was deleted I'd request from the CO to explain why and simply appeal to the Frog. Get this nonsense out in the open and resolved. It's an ALR as written, not a request by the CO.

 

Confrontational? Maybe, but the confrontation comes from his demand and response, not my logging a legitimate find. I found the cache, I logged a find, I didn't spoil it and no potty-mouthing all means a smiley, regardless of reason for the search.

 

If he doesn't like it, he can archive his caches, turn it into a really hard puzzle (I can't figure out most hard puzzles) or turn all of his caches into one huge Multi with dozens of waypoints.

 

But what if I set myself a challenge of 30 caches in that area in a day and put that into the log? Do I get deleted because a personal goal could be considered a challenge?

 

Now, if he were to ask me politely not to hunt his caches, I would most likely respect his request. But as written it is elitist, selfish and projects his views of caching to dictate my caching style. I don't get pretentious with those who choose to hunt my caches, I would hope for the same respect in return. I will respect his caches by CITO'ing, replacing (or adding to) wet or full logs, rehiding as well as before (better in some limited cases), and in some cases, replacing damaged containers that are ruined with a temporary one. I will log a DNF if I searched and could not find, notify him if there is an obstruction, danger or hazzard at the cache or on the way, and not give away a great hide to someone on my phone a friend list should they call.

 

All that with no obligation.

 

Either that or Ignore his caches too.

 

OP, have you talked to the CO?

[+Unkle Fester]

...want a bigger cache? come to www.manlymanmagnumcache.com and....

That would be cool... The website, not spam

[+WebChimp]

Is a cache owner even in the right to request such a thing and enforce it through log deletions, or could this be considered a form of ALR (I'm assuming here that the CO is referring to "found for the ** challenge" copy and paste logs)? Has anybody ever had a log actually deleted over such a request?

 

Gee, David, looks like I missed all the hub-bub this thread generated. Makes me glad I tuned in late!

 

Please feel free to use any of my caches for challenges, or whatever else makes you happy. Just put 'em back where you found 'em.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

 

Hi Carol, my post linked back the Listing Guidelines. The section on the Logging of All Physical Caches was added very recently, April 3, 2009.

You'll read many threads here that are older than that, and that may reference the cache owner's right to delete logs for little cause. That is no longer true.

 

Keystone is both a Global Forum moderator, and an experienced volunteer reviewer, definitely a reliable voice for what is allowed. Briansnat is a really nice guy who moderates in the Getting Started section. I'd call his voice reliable too (except that he's been incredibly obdurate over the U.S. Geocacher of the Year 2003 thing, so I'm not 100% "up" with 'snat these days. )

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

Cache owners can delete logs in a few circumstances. I'm pretty sure that this is limited to bogus logs, spoilers, and potty logs.

 

Of course, the cache described by the OP is an ALR, so it doesn't really matter. It's the worse kind of ALR, in my opinion because it actually is an attempt to control not only things that people do while caching, but the reasons behind caching and any future actions of the cachers. It's a silly demand, in my opinion, and one that I would happily disobey.

 

actually I would just put the CO caches on my ignore list and go on caching.

 

Jim

 

This is the mostly likely result for me as well. I generally work to avoid confrontation (despite what I look like on this thread).

 

My guess is that we'll be avoiding areas with people who support log deletion. Happily we hadn't planned to go to South Carolina or Idaho, so no loss. As to Mississippi, we do cache there but we'll just have to be much more careful about the caches we go there for.

 

It would just devastate me if someone without warning decided to delete a log I'd spent a lot of time on and I lost the prose and photos thereby. Though perhaps I need to start finding a separate home for my logs and photos since this one frequently seems so fragile.

 

Carolyn

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Isonzo,

 

Is this indeed true? My impression from reading the endlessly long thread on ALRs was that cache owners could delete for any reason at all except where someone fails to fulfill an ALR. I am new to the forum. Who here is a reliable voice for what is allowed and what is not? Is it Keystone? Or Briansnat? Or someone else?

 

Carolyn

 

Hi Carol, my post linked back the Listing Guidelines. The section on the Logging of All Physical Caches was added very recently, April 3, 2009.

You'll read many threads here that are older than that, and that may reference the cache owner's right to delete logs for little cause. That is no longer true.

 

Keystone is both a Global Forum moderator, and an experienced volunteer reviewer, definitely a reliable voice for what is allowed. Briansnat is a really nice guy who moderates in the Getting Started section. I'd call his voice reliable too (except that he's been incredibly obdurate over the U.S. Geocacher of the Year 2003 thing, so I'm not 100% "up" with 'snat these days. )

 

Thank you for the information! I'd been proceeding under the impression that Briansnat was the repository of all information worth knowing since he answered my question about photos in logs and gave me additional hints on how to make them more pleasing.

 

Keystone seemed very authoritative but lots of people do and disagree with each other, making me unsure of who to believe. It was especially true after the spirited discussion on the ALR thread after the change in the rules went through. It left me unsure of what was permitted and what was not (except that I definitely knew that photos with funny hats couldn't be required). I am still not sure how to recognize an ALR.

 

It is comforting to know that logs cannot be deleted willy nilly without substantial reason.

 

Carolyn

[+briansnat]

I read over in the ice cream forum where somebody complained that people were eating her pistachio ice cream because they were trying to meet some challenge to eat different colored ice cream and they needed a green ice cream. The ice cream maker was really annoyed. She said that she made pistachio ice cream for people to enjoy the nutty flavor and the texture of the real pistachio chunks she used in the ice cream. Now she felt offended because someone ate her pistachio ice cream just because it was green. She posted that she didn't want her ice cream used to meet any ice cream eating challenges. She said that if you didn't want to eat her ice cream for the right reason you shouldn't bothering eating it at all.

 

It didn't take long for Goodhumer's Law to be proven.

 

"As a geocaching.com discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ice cream approaches 1"

 

I'd been proceeding under the impression that Briansnat was the repository of all information worth knowing...

 

That would be correct. BrianSnat is not a person. It is the code name for a supercomputer at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Taxidermy) and is the repository for all geocaching related information.geocaching related informationgeocaching related informationgeocaching related informationgeocaching related information

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

00105e0 e6b0 0804 e79e 0804 e7bc 0804 e7d5 0804

00105f0 e7e4 0804 e6b0 0804 e7f0 0804 e7ff 0804

0010600 e80b 0804 e81a 0804 e6b0 0804 e6b0 0804

Edited June 17, 2009 by briansnat

[+Unkle Fester]

I read over in the ice cream forum where somebody complained that people were eating her pistachio ice cream because they were trying to meet some challenge to eat different colored ice cream and they needed a green ice cream. The ice cream maker was really annoyed. She said that she made pistachio ice cream for people to enjoy the nutty flavor and the texture of the real pistachio chunks she used in the ice cream. Now she felt offended because someone ate her pistachio ice cream just because it was green. She posted that she didn't want her ice cream used to meet any ice cream eating challenges. She said that if you didn't want to eat her ice cream for the right reason you shouldn't bothering eating it at all.

 

It didn't take long for Goodhumer's Law to be proven.

 

"As a geocaching.com discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ice cream approaches 1"

OMG! ICE CREAM AGAIN!!!

 

you guys gotta stop doing that

[+Marvin the Garmin]

Nothing there makes any sense to me.

[+ZeLonewolf]

I wonder how the CO in the OP would think of this guy:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...68-2a5664220098

 

I'd be wary to put the key in a known hostile cache.

[+KBI]

This is beyond silly.

 

People find my caches for a variety of reasons, but I have never had any cause to take personal insult at any of those reasons. Such a thing never occurred to me before reading this thread. Why should I care why cachers find and log my caches? I hide my caches to be found. I do NOT hide my caches with any intent toward controlling why other people enjoy their leisure time.

 

Some say they see a difference between "finding" caches and "enjoying" caches. To this I say: Huh? I assume ALL cachers who find and log caches do so out of enjoyment. Isn’t this a hobby? This IS still a hobby, right? Why would anyone ever seek any cache, if not for reasons of "enjoyment?"

 

Doesn’t it follow, then, that all cachers who specifically seek to complete challenge caches therefore do so purely out of enjoyment? Why else would anyone attempt a challenge cache? Many logs have appeared on my caches over the years explaining that the logger found my cache specifically to complete a particular challenge. In each and every case I assumed the cacher was having a good time. I never questioned this assumption; it never, ever occurred to me to imagine anything otherwise. And I certainly never saw any reason to take personal offence.

 

I believe any cacher who questions and/or challenges the motivations of other cachers – or worse, who seeks to control the motivations of other cachers – does so out of a powerful sense of personal insecurity. That’s just a theory, of course (I can’t read their minds any more than they can read mine) but I’ve never seen any evidence to the contrary.

 

It is excessively egotistical for anyone to assume he or she knows what motivates me to find caches; it is excessively arrogant for anyone to assume their geocaching motivations are somehow superior to mine, and it is excessively rude for anyone to act on such pompous assumptions.

 

I’ve never attempted a challenge cache, but if I ever think I would enjoy doing so I just might try one. If I do, I will proceed the same way I always proceed when caching: As long as I’m complying with the law, following the guidelines and respecting others' rights to life, liberty and property, I will completely ignore other peoples’ self-doubting attempts to control my underlying motivations.

 

I refuse to let anyone tell me I’m not caching properly merely because they become irrationally offended over strange assumptions regarding anything I may or may not be thinking to myself as I go about enjoying this hobby.

[+tozainamboku]

Some say they see a difference between "finding" caches and "enjoying" caches. To this I say: Huh? I assume ALL cachers who find and log caches do so out of enjoyment. Isn’t this a hobby? This IS still a hobby, right? Why would anyone ever seek any cache, if not for reasons of "enjoyment?"

You might also assume that people only eat ice cream because they enjoy it. But the truth is that some people eat ice cream in order to get fat. As a responsible ice cream provider, I am appalled that people are eating my ice cream to get fat. The epidemic of obesity in this country is resulting in higher health care cost for all of us. I respectfully ask those who eat ice cream in order to get fat refrain from eating my ice cream.

 

[sorry Uncke Fester and briansnat, this topic is just too good to pass on the ice cream analogies. We are arguing over whether a cache owner can control the reason that someone else might want to find their cache. I'm sure there are ice cream manufacturers who want people to eat their ice cream because it taste the best, but wouldn't they seem silly if they told people not to eat their ice cream if they had some other reason (like it was the most fattening)?]

[+EvanMinn]

But at the same time I don't know that you should let it bother you so much that you actually get offended. Fight the good fight but be careful of being TOO sensitive to the issue.

Not speaking for flask, but I don't get offended to the point of outrage. I get offended on the scale of when I'm following a stranger through a door and they don't look back to see if someone is following and let the door close in my face. Yep, that's a bit rude, but I just shake my head and move on.

 

Some of the posters here are pretending that we all of the opinion that simply using a cache as a stepping stone is rude are foaming at the mouths and hopping mad. You're not, but we can still recognize it as rude. We certainly are not going to deny that it's rude or pretend it's okay simply because you can't stop it.

 

But it appears that at least some of your perception of rudeness stems from your assumptions about what people that are doing the cache as part of a challenge are thinking:

 

"...the only reason someone found our cache is because they're only interested in "bigger and better things."

 

"A finder who finds one of our caches to fulfill a challenge's criteria is not finding our cache because they want to experience our cache, but to be able to legally log someone else's cache."

 

"many of us don't put out cache simply to be found, we put them out to be enjoyed."

 

"our efforts are sometimes boiled down to nothing but a stepping stone to a "bigger and better" cache"

 

"Did you hunt that cache solely for the v and got nothing out of it because you failed to find, and thusly was unable to claim that v? Problem."

 

You have no way of knowing for sure whether they chose your cached because they ALSO thought they might enjoy it. You also are assuming they only look at it as a tick off a list and not as an enjoyable cache.

 

All of that smacks of mindreading.

 

I think if you started giving people the benefit of the doubt - that they see it as MORE than just a tick on a list even if it is also that - you might not even be as mildly offended as you are.

 

Unless you actually can read minds, why assume the worst in people?

Edited June 17, 2009 by EvanMinn

[+KBI]

Maybe the rules need to be updated (again):

• If you take something from the geocache, leave something of equal or greater value.
  
• Write about your experience in the geocache logbook.
  
• Place your geocaching stories and photos online.
  
• Duly pacify and appeaseth the fragile ego of yon insecure cache owner, lest ye feeleth the wrath of his Delete Log sword.
  

[+Unkle Fester]

Great, so I have now learned two things:

 

1) Ice cream will make you fat. I wondered how that happened.

 

2) When I cache, I have to be concerned about the fragile ego's of a CO who may or may not delete my log simply because he may like or dislike my reason for hunting his cache.

 

I choose Ice Cream. Better fat than ticked off.

[+Jackalgirl]

I guess the point I was trying to make (and I'm sure that it's been made before) is that the CO is wrong in the belief that he/she may delete a log if it's mentioned that the finder was hunting the cache as a part of a challenge cache.

 

It seems to me that the argument has expanded.

 

I fully admit that I haven't read every single message with a great deal of depth. But it seems to me that what's really going on is a series of larger questions:

 

o To what extent does a cache finder owe recognition to a cache owner?

o What is the minimum standard for the form of that recognition?

o Should (or can) a minimum standard be mandated?

 

And there are two forms of "mandated": form one is "it's okay to delete logs that don't conform to this standard." Form two is "this is the dominant opinion and people on the Forums who express alternate opinions should expect to be corrected."

 

Some people seem to believe that "high-quality" (non-minimal, preferably with photos) logs are the basic standard which cache owners should expect -- the cache owner, having (hopefully) expended a fair amount of time & effort in finding a good place for a cache, placing a nice container with good swag, etc, etc, etc.

 

In this school of thought, leaving a log not up to this standard is rude, or, alternately, it's a method by which someone might indicate a sub-standard cache. In other words, communication between the hider and the finder (and between hiders) is indirect. It is conveyed by the quality of the log as well as its actual content ("TFTC" could very well be sarcastic, because if someone really wanted to thank the CO, they'd spell it out).

 

Other people feel that finding the cache (and signing the log) is the standard form of recognition that any cache owner should expect (and that everything else is gravy -- wonderful, but should never be routinely expected and certainly should not be demanded).

 

In this school of thought, leaving a minimalist log is not rude -- leaving an outright rude log is rude ("this cache sucked!"). In other words, the communication between the hider (and between hiders) is direct. All that matters is the actual content of the log (if the log says "TFTC", then the finder is saying "Thanks for the cache" and can be presumed to mean it).

 

How do people actually communicate? Is the indirect form of communication the norm (in which people express their displeasure via the form of a log as well as its content)? Or is the direct form of communication the norm? As a cache owner, do you expect a particular form of communication and feel insulted or slighted when that form isn't used? Do we perhaps expect both to be used ("as a finder, I express my displeasure by leaving short, low-content logs. As a hider, I expect finders to tell me directly if they have a problem with my cache")? Should one form of communication or the other be mandated?

 

There's another dynamic going on, also, in that one of the ideas is that a cache should be treated as sovereign -- that is, it should be hunted (and logged) on its own*, and that using the cache merely as a means of achieving another cache (especially challenge caches) is rude.

 

*multi-caches, series caches, and other caches that are expected to be associated together are exempt although they might be considered "sovereign" in their collective association.

 

So a further argument is: are caches (or should they be) sovereign? Do (or should) all cache owners expect their caches to be experienced as separate, complete experiences? Expectations are one thing, but what about mandates? Is it right to mandate that one's cache be treated as a separate, complete experience?

 

(Edited for grammar, as usual.)

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jackalgirl

[+flask]

if this loud and (to me) entertaining debate prompts one person to write a decent log where he otherwise might not have done, i have accomplished all i hoped to do.

 

You might start by first practicing some puncutation, er, I mean, using your shift key, if you intend others to improve their writing skills. In other words, you're entitled to you opinion. But for gosh sakes, practice what you preach. And that ain't meant as a slam..

 

if you'd been paying attention, you would know that my punctuation is impeccable.

 

as for capitals, a long-ago broken hand, a tremor that's permanent and residual of a long-discontinued medication, and an underlying problem with right/left coordination makes it hard for me to type at all. it is with much difficulty that i am able to put letters in the correct order without having to manipulate an extra key.

 

my penmanship, which used to be lovely and balanced, has also fallen by the wayside. i used to work as a copyist. now, even though i only use block letters (and caps at that) when writing by hand, it's still barely legible and painful to boot.

 

what i've been preaching here, however, has not been about any style manual, spellchecker, or proofreading skills. i have not criticized the barely literate (who seem to hang out here a lot) for making a bona fide log entries that lack grammatical sense.

 

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

1) Ice cream will make you fat. I wondered how that happened.

 

 

No, no, no! Wrong lesson. Ice cream is therapeutic. It is the perfect combination of creamy coldness and sweet goodness that is both the reward and cooling balm after a long hike in the heat. It has important psychological benefits and it restores the body to proper functioning after exercise.

 

Those people who believe that ice cream is for weight gain or ice cream is just about taste are heathens. Sober people around the world agree that ice cream is medicinal.

 

 

Carolyn

[+JohnE5]

Can't we all just find a cache!?!

[knowschad]

if this loud and (to me) entertaining debate prompts one person to write a decent log where he otherwise might not have done, i have accomplished all i hoped to do.

 

You might start by first practicing some puncutation, er, I mean, using your shift key, if you intend others to improve their writing skills. In other words, you're entitled to you opinion. But for gosh sakes, practice what you preach. And that ain't meant as a slam..

 

if you'd been paying attention, you would know that my punctuation is impeccable.

 

as for capitals, a long-ago broken hand, a tremor that's permanent and residual of a long-discontinued medication, and an underlying problem with right/left coordination makes it hard for me to type at all. it is with much difficulty that i am able to put letters in the correct order without having to manipulate an extra key.

 

my penmanship, which used to be lovely and balanced, has also fallen by the wayside. i used to work as a copyist. now, even though i only use block letters (and caps at that) when writing by hand, it's still barely legible and painful to boot.

 

what i've been preaching here, however, has not been about any style manual, spellchecker, or proofreading skills. i have not criticized the barely literate (who seem to hang out here a lot) for making a bona fide log entries that lack grammatical sense.

 

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother.

 

AMEN to that, flask! (the bolded part) Didn't know about the rest, but I just assumed that it was an ego-minimalization thing. As in, "i" instead of "I". Bob Dylan did that on his earliest album jackets.

 

e . e. cummings would appreciate your punctuation, too.

Edited June 18, 2009 by knowschad

[+Jackalgirl]

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother.

 

How do you know that this is (or isn't) the reason for a particular person's (acronym-using) log? It seems to be that you may be ascribing a motive to someone that may not be there (unless, of course, that person has expressly said to you "I am too important to leave long logs"). Assuming that your statement is based on evidence, how many acronym loggers (out of how many total acronym loggers) have actually said "I'm too special" or "I'm too busy" or "I'm too impressive" (to not use acronyms)?

 

By contrast, how many of them utilize acronyms because of difficulties in manipulating a keyboard for a longer composition?

 

(I'm honestly not trying to be snippy here. I guess what I'm [indirectly] trying to point out is that there may very well be a real danger in assuming that the use of acronyms means something more than what the acronym itself directly conveys.)

[+flask]

 

[*]Duly pacify and appeaseth the fragile ego of yon insecure cache owner, lest ye feeleth the wrath of his Delete Log sword.

 

 

fixed for ye.

 

the language, it is what it were; and yet, it is not. it passeth fair and therein the suffix need not be appended; yea, shouldst not be appended to each verb of second-person singular simple present tense.

 

hot ice and wondrous strange snow.

[+flask]

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother.

 

How do you know that this is (or isn't) the reason for a particular person's (acronym-using) log? It seems to be that you may be ascribing a motive to someone that may not be there (unless, of course, that person has expressly said to you "I am too important to leave long logs"). Assuming that your statement is based on evidence, how many acronym loggers (out of how many total acronym loggers) have actually said "I'm too special" or "I'm too busy" or "I'm too impressive" (to not use acronyms)?

 

By contrast, how many of them utilize acronyms because of difficulties in manipulating a keyboard for a longer composition?

 

(I'm honestly not trying to be snippy here. I guess what I'm [indirectly] trying to point out is that there may very well be a real danger in assuming that the use of acronyms means something more than what the acronym itself directly conveys.)

 

i do not believe that at any time i railed against acronyms, either. if you put some in a decent log, that's just fine with me. if you mention your number run or your challenge as part of a decent log, that's also fine with me.

 

when you substitute these things in the place of a decent log, that's where you cross my line.

 

maybe in the future i will experiment by writing "i'm too busy to write a log for your cache" and see what cache owners have to say about it.

[+Jackalgirl]

 

i do not believe that at any time i railed against acronyms, either. if you put some in a decent log, that's just fine with me. if you mention your number run or your challenge as part of a decent log, that's also fine with me.

 

when you substitute these things in the place of a decent log, that's where you cross my line.

 

maybe in the future i will experiment by writing "i'm too busy to write a log for your cache" and see what cache owners have to say about it.

 

But this doesn't really address my point. My point is that you are stating that people who do not write "a decent log" are doing so because they are "self-important twits" (too lazy, too special, etc). I myself am assuming that by "a decent log" you mean "something more than just 'TNLNSL, TFTC!'" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

My question is: how do you know that this is the reason why (presumably all of) these people are writing logs like this? Do you have any evidence that this is so?

 

I like to write long logs. I probably do not put as much work into my logs as Carolyn puts into hers, but I do like writing long logs -- most especially for those caches I find the most interesting or compelling. I hope that the care I take in writing logs inspires other local cachers to do the same thing, and I hope that if we all do it, that it becomes the expectation.

 

As a cache owner, I do wish that people who write "TFTC" would write a little more.

 

However, I would not presume to insult a person for doing so without actually knowing why they do it, or to feel personally insulted if that's all they wrote about one of my caches.

 

If I know that a person genuinely is too lazy, and that this particular person genuinely believes that geocaching exists to scratch his particular itch in total absence of anyone else's benefit and therefore doesn't feel that any larger effort is necessary, then sure, I probably would be a bit snarky.

 

But I don't assume that's his motive. For all I know, the person might be coming down with a raging case of Carpal Tunnel or have issues with his hands and fingers that causes real problems with keyboards (or might have some other writing limitations).

 

That's the ultimate point I'm trying to make -- that it is a mistake to ascribe "twitness" to people who leave logs that you yourself would consider beneath your own capabilities, or to be insulted by them, unless you know for a fact that they're actually twits, or are actually trying to insult you.

[+rjb43nh]

Flask-"i have not criticized the barely literate (who seem to hang out here a lot) for making a bona fide log entries that lack grammatical sense.

 

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother."

Your continual berating of others who hold different viewpoints than yours makes you look petty and small. One would think that after your tirade 2 days ago and the warning to you from the moderator about personal attacks you would try to act more civil.

[+KBI]

 

[*]Duly pacify and appeaseth the fragile ego of yon insecure cache owner, lest ye feeleth the wrath of his Delete Log sword.

fixed for ye.

 

the language, it is what it were; and yet, it is not. it passeth fair and therein the suffix need not be appended; yea, shouldst not be appended to each verb of second-person singular simple present tense.

Thankth thee, yet thou athumeth I careth to thpeaketh in thy thpethific toungueth. Nevertheleth; thanketh thou for thy gloriouth (albeit unrequethteth and non-topical tangenthial-ith) lessoneth in yon antiqueth perthonal cayth and temporal tenth.

[Clan Riffster]

We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Perhaps this will lead to yet another Clan Riffster snarky T-shirt?

"Ice Cream & Goats: The ultimate destination of extended Geocaching forum threads"

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

According to the Infinite monkey theorem if y'all keep this going someone will eventually write something worth reading.

[+KBI]

maybe in the future i will experiment by writing "i'm too busy to write a log for your cache" and see what cache owners have to say about it.

But this doesn't really address my point. My point is that you are stating that people who do not write "a decent log" are doing so because they are "self-important twits" (too lazy, too special, etc). I myself am assuming that by "a decent log" you mean "something more than just 'TNLNSL, TFTC!'" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

My question is: how do you know that this is the reason why (presumably all of) these people are writing logs like this? Do you have any evidence that this is so?

Flask-"i have not criticized the barely literate (who seem to hang out here a lot) for making a bona fide log entries that lack grammatical sense.

 

what i am against is lazy self-important twits who can't be bothered to string together a few words for a log on the grounds that they're way too special/busy/impressive to have to bother."

Your continual berating of others who hold different viewpoints than yours makes you look petty and small. One would think that after your tirade 2 days ago and the warning to you from the moderator about personal attacks you would try to act more civil.

Jackalgirl and rjb43nh: Please allow me to point out something that I have learned during my years in these forums, and in life:

 

The facts aren’t relevant. Logic isn’t relevant. Reason isn’t relevant. All that is relevant, when discussing certain issues (like this one) with certain folks, is emotion, dogma and ego.

 

Some people complain. Period. That is their hobby, and they complain no matter how good they have it.

 

"He that's content, hath enough; He that complains, has too much." - Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

 

Geocaching is apparently too pleasant, in its true form, for these complainers. When there is no actual threat to their happiness or their ego they go looking for one. They are only happy when they are whining about something. When there is a real problem, something actually worth griping about, they’re all over it. When there is nothing available, however, they invent fictitious threats to their emotional well-being and then they whine about that. When the glass is half full they insist it’s half empty. When the glass is topped off to the brim they insist the glass is too small.

 

It is in just such a benign, marvelous, stress-free, fun, serene, wonderful and non-competitive hobby as Geocaching that they find themselves supremely challenged. These complainers must find affront and outrage wherever they can get it ... and then, when they can’t find it, they imagine it under every rock, bush, film canister and online log.

 

If folks aren’t searching out the same types of caches as the complainers, then it is obviously meant as a personal insult. Those people aren’t caching "properly."

If folks aren’t hiding the same types of caches as the complainers, then that is also clearly meant as an affront.

If folks aren’t using the same filtering/seeking/finding/logging standards as the complainers, then those things is also meant as direct personal offense.

 

It follows, then, that any failure to honor their individual cache as a stand-alone project, or admitting in your log that you found several other caches that day, or confessing the sin of including their hide in some larger fun-having scheme, no matter what that scheme may be, without having cleared it with them first, is obviously therefore meant as some kind of bullying abuse intended to constitute face-slapping public humiliation for the cache owner.

 

What these folks never seem to understand is that the very act of claiming inferior or abusive things about good and friendly people is, in itself, rude. I don’t cache to make others feel bad; I cache to make myself feel good. For anyone to assume the opposite (or more commonly, to assume their version of the game is somehow superior to mine and conclude that my version is intolerable) is boorish, but I never let those gripes bother me once I consider the source.

 

I don’t dislike the complainers, you understand; I merely pity them. Life is too short for their attitude. There are too many real problems in the world; why invent fictitious ones?

 

You will never convince these poor folks to see the pointlessness of their miserable-yet-unnecessary slant. The best you can do is to step in and present an opposing viewpoint any time their posts might otherwise stand to convince newbies – which is the main reason I ever wade into these things.

 

When you guys get tired of all this, come and find one of my caches. Log my cache online in any family-friendly (and non-spoiling) way you like. I will take for granted you sought my cache for your own amusement, and I will hope you succeeded in having fun. And I will simply be glad you came by. Compliments are always welcome, but they are never required.

 

And don’t waste your time trying to turn these guys from the Whiny Side of the Force.

[+sbell111]

We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Perhaps this will lead to yet another Clan Riffster snarky T-shirt?

"Ice Cream & Goats: The ultimate destination of extended Geocaching forum threads"

That's perfectly fine, as long as the end result is goat milk ice cream and not goat flavored ice cream.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Your continual berating of others who hold different viewpoints than yours makes you look petty and small....

 

Please allow me to point out something that I have learned during my years in these forums, and in life:

 

The facts aren’t relevant. Logic isn’t relevant. Reason isn’t relevant. All that is relevant, when discussing certain issues (like this one) with certain folks, is emotion, dogma and ego.

 

Some people complain. Period. That is their hobby, and they complain no matter how good they have it.

 

"He that's content, hath enough; He that complains, has too much." - Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

 

Geocaching is apparently too pleasant, in its true form, for these complainers. When there is no actual threat to their happiness or their ego they go looking for one. They are only happy when they are whining about something. When there is a real problem, something actually worth griping about, they’re all over it. When there is nothing available, however, they invent fictitious threats to their emotional well-being and then they whine about that. When the glass is half full they insist it’s half empty. When the glass is topped off to the brim they insist the glass is too small.

 

It is in just such a benign, marvelous, stress-free, fun, serene, wonderful and non-competitive hobby as Geocaching that they find themselves supremely challenged. These complainers must find affront and outrage wherever they can get it ... and then, when they can’t find it, they imagine it under every rock, bush, film canister and online log.

 

If folks aren’t searching out the same types of caches as the complainers, then it is obviously meant as a personal insult. Those people aren’t caching "properly."

If folks aren’t hiding the same types of caches as the complainers, then that is also clearly meant as an affront.

If folks aren’t using the same filtering/seeking/finding/logging standards as the complainers, then those things is also meant as direct personal offense.

 

It follows, then, that any failure to honor their individual cache as a stand-alone project, or admitting in your log that you found several other caches that day, or confessing the sin of including their hide in some larger fun-having scheme, no matter what that scheme may be, without having cleared it with them first, is obviously therefore meant as some kind of bullying abuse intended to constitute face-slapping public humiliation for the cache owner.

 

What these folks never seem to understand is that the very act of claiming inferior or abusive things about good and friendly people is, in itself, rude. I don’t cache to make others feel bad; I cache to make myself feel good. For anyone to assume the opposite (or more commonly, to assume their version of the game is somehow superior to mine and conclude that my version is intolerable) is boorish, but I never let those gripes bother me once I consider the source.

 

I don’t dislike the complainers, you understand; I merely pity them. Life is too short for their attitude. There are too many real problems in the world; why invent fictitious ones?

 

You will never convince these poor folks to see the pointlessness of their miserable-yet-unnecessary slant. The best you can do is to step in and present an opposing viewpoint any time their posts might otherwise stand to convince newbies – which is the main reason I ever wade into these things.

 

When you guys get tired of all this, come and find one of my caches. Log my cache online in any family-friendly (and non-spoiling) way you like. I will take for granted you sought my cache for your own amusement, and I will hope you succeeded in having fun. And I will simply be glad you came by. Compliments are always welcome, but they are never required.

 

And don’t waste your time trying to turn these guys from the Whiny Side of the Force.

See? I told ya so!

Edited June 18, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+KBI]

See? I told ya so!

Thanks, but like I said:

 

Compliments are always welcome, but they are never required.

[+sbell111]

See? I told ya so!

Thanks, but like I said:

 

Compliments are always welcome, but they are never required.

My wife and I really liked taking the quick break to find your CRW cache, even though our looking for it was secondary to a wedding we were going to in the area. I hope my log was acceptable.

[knowschad]

We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Perhaps this will lead to yet another Clan Riffster snarky T-shirt?

"Ice Cream & Goats: The ultimate destination of extended Geocaching forum threads"

That's perfectly fine, as long as the end result is goat milk ice cream and not goat flavored ice cream.

 

Well, you know, there are folks that actually prefer goat-flavored ice cream over goat milk ice cream. What are you? Some sort of goat-flavored ice cream nazi?

 

[+sbell111]

We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Perhaps this will lead to yet another Clan Riffster snarky T-shirt?

"Ice Cream & Goats: The ultimate destination of extended Geocaching forum threads"

That's perfectly fine, as long as the end result is goat milk ice cream and not goat flavored ice cream.

Well, you know, there are folks that actually prefer goat-flavored ice cream over goat milk ice cream. What are you? Some sort of goat-flavored ice cream nazi?

 

I totally saw that coming.

 

Between this and PETA coming after me because I killed the ants trying to invade my home, I'm basically screwed.

Edited June 18, 2009 by sbell111