Don't use my cache for your challenge!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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?

 

It took only 200 posts for Nazis to come up. Will Godwin's Law having been evoked signal the end of this thread?

Edited June 18, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+KBI]

Will Godwin's Law having been evoked signal the end of this thread?

Gotta admit, that's a nice thought.

 

Now that the insecure complainers seem to have stopped defending their insecure complaining, there doesn't seem to be much purpose to this thread any longer other than to make goat jokes -- which is never a waste of time in my clearly superior opinion, but I fear the goat jokes increases are only going to cause a cranky Mod to slap a stamp on this thread and mail it off to Off Topic Land.

[knowschad]

Like this?

 

PETA coming after me because I killed the ants trying to invade my home

[+Jackalgirl]

 

[*]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.

 

Wow, we've got Igors in geocaching, now? ; )

 

(Thank you, Terry Pratchett...)

[+Jackalgirl]

...

 

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

...

 

Or, in other words (and to paraphrase a common Navy saying) "A b****ing Geocacher is a happy Geocacher?" ; )

[knowschad]

...

 

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

...

 

Or, in other words (and to paraphrase a common Navy saying) "A b****ing Geocacher is a happy Geocacher?" ; )

 

I was in the Navy, and I recognize those @#$! *'s all too well.

[+flask]

 

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?

 

 

yes. persons who have the energy to come out and find dozens of caches in a day and then paste the exact same log to all of them are clearly phoning it in. people who can't be bothered to even adjust the cut-and-paste job to reflect the proper state are egregiously phoning it in.

 

before i consider their work to be sloppy and substandard, i look at their other logs. when all their logs are entirely comprised of telling us how busy they are and how swell their numbers run is, you have an a-number-one twit.

 

i know plenty of guys who don't have a lot to say in cache logs. they don't tell us it's because they're too busy plowing through caches to write a log. neither do they use their few words to brag on their glorious selves.

 

if you read enough logs, it's easy to sort out who's taciturn and who's a twit.

[+Unkle Fester]

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

Can they be flying monkeys? I'd wanna read about that.

[+Jackalgirl]

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

 

<snip for brevity>

 

 

I agree. I am finding, more and more (and I've said this before) that people often do not feel truly fulfilled unless they are Outraged. So I'm wondering if this sort of complaint is a means of feeling personal fulfillment.

 

I still think that if one is genuinely concerned about teaching other people (especially new cachers) good habits with regard to logging, the best way to do that is to log well. Railing against low-content loggers and calling them names isn't the way to go. I'm not shamed into descriptive logs by the fear of being called a "twit" by people like flask; I write those kinds of logs because I like to, and because I'm impressed by other logs of the same nature (or, usually, better), and when I see those kinds of logs, it encourages me to take the time to try to write a really good log (by my standard).

 

But you're quite right: pointing out stuff like this does no good if the original complainer's desire is simply to complain.

[+Unkle Fester]

 

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?

 

 

yes. persons who have the energy to come out and find dozens of caches in a day and then paste the exact same log to all of them are clearly phoning it in. people who can't be bothered to even adjust the cut-and-paste job to reflect the proper state are egregiously phoning it in.

 

before i consider their work to be sloppy and substandard, i look at their other logs. when all their logs are entirely comprised of telling us how busy they are and how swell their numbers run is, you have an a-number-one twit.

 

i know plenty of guys who don't have a lot to say in cache logs. they don't tell us it's because they're too busy plowing through caches to write a log. neither do they use their few words to brag on their glorious selves.

 

if you read enough logs, it's easy to sort out who's taciturn and who's a twit.

Um, I have to agree that it is easy to tell.

[+Jackalgirl]

 

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?

 

 

yes. persons who have the energy to come out and find dozens of caches in a day and then paste the exact same log to all of them are clearly phoning it in. people who can't be bothered to even adjust the cut-and-paste job to reflect the proper state are egregiously phoning it in.

 

before i consider their work to be sloppy and substandard, i look at their other logs. when all their logs are entirely comprised of telling us how busy they are and how swell their numbers run is, you have an a-number-one twit.

 

i know plenty of guys who don't have a lot to say in cache logs. they don't tell us it's because they're too busy plowing through caches to write a log. neither do they use their few words to brag on their glorious selves.

 

if you read enough logs, it's easy to sort out who's taciturn and who's a twit.

 

You're telling me about specific persons whom you have researched. This is fine, and thank you for the clarification; in previous messages, it certainly sounded as if you were talking about "content-poor loggers" in general. How many people are there like this, as a percentage of "content-poor loggers" as a whole?

 

Also, does the energy to go out and find caches automatically translate into a facility with a keyboard? That's sort of what it sounds like you're saying.

 

Perhaps there are people who copy and paste their logs because they're either poor or uncomfortable with the keyboard or -- maybe -- have some kind of physical limitation in their hands that makes it difficult for them to type something different for the 100 caches they found with their friends over the weekend?

 

Or maybe they just don't like to type or write? Is there something wrong with that?

 

Is it possible for someone who does not have the same facility with the keyboard -- and with writing -- as you to not be a twit?

 

I take it that you feel that cache owners (and other cache finders) are owed something that is more content-rich than "The 120th cache I've found today, yay for me!" or "TFTC"-type logs. Is that a correct summation of your position? If so, what do you think is owed, and why? Are all geocachers, for example, required to be literate in order not to be twits?

[+tozainamboku]

I think this comes down to what we see as the purpose of the online logs. Different cachers may see a different purpose in the online log (or give different weight to different purposes). What is bothersome is that some people sound as if they feel that someone who view the purpose of the logs differently than they do are wrong (or lazy).

 

Here are some reasons for writing online logs:

1. Keep track of my finds and DNFs
   
2. Thank the cache hider
   
3. Share my experience
   
4. Provide a hint (or spoiler) for those that come later
   
5. Show off my creative writing skills
   
6. Have a place to post my pictures
   

Here are some reasons for reading logs:

1. See when the cache was last found
   
2. Look for hints or spoilers
   
3. Get an idea if this cache is one I would enjoy finding
   
4. Enjoy the creative writing skills of the logger
   
5. Find logs to post about here
   
6. Look at pictures
   

[+flask]

 

You're telling me about specific persons whom you have researched. This is fine, and thank you for the clarification; in previous messages, it certainly sounded as if you were talking about "content-poor loggers" in general. How many people are there like this, as a percentage of "content-poor loggers" as a whole?

 

 

my idea of poor loggers is limited solely to those who behave this way. unhappily, i see a lot of them. like i said, logs that are merely short do not attract my attention as being poor. this morning as i've been working on writing my logs i have encountered two different cheesy cut-and-pastes on two different caches. i have only been on two cache pages so far this morning.

 

because this is about par for the course, i'd say there's a high percentage of twits.

 

 

Perhaps there are people who copy and paste their logs because they're either poor or uncomfortable with the keyboard or -- maybe -- have some kind of physical limitation in their hands that makes it difficult for them to type something different for the 100 caches they found with their friends over the weekend?

 

i actually have much difficulty typing. i have a permanent hand tremor, pain from an old break in my right hand, and significant right/left coordination problems. i also have brain damage that makes it difficult for me to form reliable memory, so for every cache i log i also have to go through my notes, my pictures, and a good deal of other people's logs to have an idea of which cache i'm logging. i spend about an hour and a half each day working on my logs, and i'm only caught up to the morning of 11 may.

 

i'd really like it to go faster, but if i could take the time to find someone's cache and use it to augment my find count, i can jolly well write a decent log about it.

 

Or maybe they just don't like to type or write? Is there something wrong with that?

 

nope, there's nothing wrong with a short log. and there's nothing wrong with logs from the marginally literate. i know how to use a semi-colon, but i can't fix a lightsocket, and i don't even know what a carburator is. i do not expect everyone to have a high degree of facility with language, but every one of us can say a few words according to his ability.

 

i have in mind a guy whom i consider to be just barely literate, and yet it's obvious that he's a competent professional in his field and able to hold positions of responsibility. i know i couldn't do what he does, and it doesn't matter one bit if he can't put a proper sentence on the page.

 

whatever he writes is just fine.

 

Is it possible for someone who does not have the same facility with the keyboard -- and with writing -- as you to not be a twit?

 

yes, but as soon as they start writing breezy cut-and-pastes about how too totally busy they are racking up numbers to write logs or can't even get the name of the state they're in right because they found two hundred caches in a month and wrote the same log for every one of them, they're twits.

 

it is not unusual for me to find a couple hundred caches in a month. i write logs for ALLLL of them.

 

I take it that you feel that cache owners (and other cache finders) are owed something that is more content-rich than "The 120th cache I've found today, yay for me!" or "TFTC"-type logs. Is that a correct summation of your position? If so, what do you think is owed, and why? Are all geocachers, for example, required to be literate in order not to be twits?

 

not owed, no. as a cache owner i don't feel entitled to fabulous logs or even long logs, and i wouldn't dream of deleting crass, poor logs and i won't even quote them as examples here. people will do what they do, but people who write poor logs because they're too busy need to get less busy.

 

i cringe when people are so self-important that they make outgoing phone calls from theater performances. my sense of decency is pinched every time i see two people talking and one of them takes an incoming phone call, or when someone's too important to speak kindly to the receptionist.

 

when i find thirty caches in a day i do not assume for a moment that the cache owner, subsequent finders, or readers of logs will be at all impressed with a log that suggests that my find count is important enough to excuse me from writing a few words about the cache.

 

decent logs are part of the balance of the game.

 

i care about giving appropriate attention to my logs, and i want other people to take appropriate care as well.

 

when you write "our best day ever. found 30 caches and home by 5" and then you copy that exact log to every cache, you have not taken appropriate care.

[+sbell111]

Do you believe that it is in keeping with the forum guidelines to call people 'twits'?

Edited June 19, 2009 by sbell111

[+flask]

Do you believe that it is in keeping with the forum guidelines to call people 'twits'?

 

if you were smart, you'd quit taking potshots at me for the sake of taking potshots.

 

that'd be a tall order for you, though.

[+sbell111]

I guess that's a 'no'.

[+rjb43nh]

sbell111-"Do you believe that it is in keeping with the forum guidelines to call people 'twits'?

...

I guess that's a 'no'.

Good retort! You do have to realize that we have heard from the erudite authority on twitism. If they can't wow us with facts and logic, they'll try burying us in snide remarks and personal insults. That is the sign of the intellectually bankrupt.

[+mtn-man]

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

Final warning.

 

Ironically, if you Google "define: twit", you get this:

* twerp: someone who is regarded as contemptible

* tease: harass with persistent criticism or carping

* aggravation by deriding or mocking or criticizing

Sounds like calling people twits might make you the twit after all.

 

Back on topic please. Show fellow community members the same respect you expect to receive.

[+sbell111]

To the actual thread topic:

 

I think that forbidding people to use a specific owned cache towards any future challenge cache completion makes as much sense as requiring that a specific cache not be used in the FTF game. (None, at all.)

Edited June 19, 2009 by sbell111

[+niraD]

I think that forbidding people to use a specific owned cache towards any future challenge cache completion makes as much sense as requiring that a specific cache not be used in the FTF game. (None, at all.)

Yep. The analogy that came to my mind was a cache owner who hates Travel Bugs, and wants to delete the logs of anyone who tries to log a TB into his cache. Then along comes someone who logs a personal TB into every cache to track his mileage...

[+Renegade Knight]

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

 

<snip for brevity>

 

 

I agree. I am finding, more and more (and I've said this before) that people often do not feel truly fulfilled unless they are Outraged....

 

Funny. I find that it's people who feel smug about their (normally wrong) way of thinking that feel fulfilled. I can take a garden variety outraged person and in short order have an intelligent conversation with them. This I can't do with the sanctimonious smug. For them it's not about doing the right thing. Understanding, or even caring. It's about they are right, and that's all there is too it.

[+Renegade Knight]

To the actual thread topic:

 

I think that forbidding people to use a specific owned cache towards any future challenge cache completion makes as much sense as requiring that a specific cache not be used in the FTF game. (None, at all.)

 

I would counter with, it makes as much sence as someone asking that their cache not be used for TB games & movment. Which is to say that while it may not make any sence for you. It does for them. If you can't understand it yourself, it changes nothing about the fact that it does for them.

 

What makes no sence to me in this thread is actual animosity twoards a cache owners whos request is easy to honor even if you don't like it or understand it.

 

Personally I don't care for the TB game. BUT my muse once demanded that I place a TB hotel and see if I could make it actually good for that job. It seems to be as it's used for that purpose. But I still don't have much use for the TB game. You don't have to understand the difference between the two to bump into that I have a TB hotel and don't really enjoy the TB part of caching.

[+Isonzo Karst]

What makes no sence to me in this thread is actual animosity twoards a cache owners whos request is easy to honor even if you don't like it or understand it.

 

You're assuming that the request is easy to honor. I'd assume the opposite. For one thing, it was only recently added to his caches. That means that the cachers who are busily building their bookmarked lists that include his cache, have already found it, and haven't read his request. It wasn't there when they found his hide.

 

Further, that his cache has been used enough for some challenge(s) that it's become an annoyance to him, suggests that it must be convenient for one.

 

I do understand being annoyed by logs that diminish the value of the cache - I absolutely have sympathy for CR, owning the only cache in one of the SC DeLorme sections, but I still don't think that the cache owner can tell me what lists I can build. Or what stats I can create out of my finds. Both as a practical matter, and as a matter of behaving well in the game.

[+succotash]

As noted in post #73, for a short while we also had the only cache in one of the SC DeLorme zones (GC110RN). Even though we placed it before we knew anything about the DeLorme challenge, we were very happy when cachers found our cache for the purpose of completing their DeLorme run. Not only did our cache allow them to succeed in the challenge, but they got to see an excellent public boat ramp on the beautiful Savannah River in the process. What's not to like about that?

 

Now that there are lots of easier caches in that zone, those simply seeking to meet the challenge as quickly as possible are not going to drive 3 miles down a clay road through a swamp to find our boat ramp cache. It's nice that they have options, our boat ramp cache still gets visitors, and hopefully everyone finds what they need to be happy.

 

Bean

[+KBI]

I do understand being annoyed by logs that diminish the value of the cache –

You do?

 

... I absolutely have sympathy for CR, owning the only cache in one of the SC DeLorme sections ...

Can you explain it to me, then?

 

How does Finder A’s motivation for finding a given cache "diminish the value" of that cache for Finder B?

 

"Well, I was, like, thinking of attempting this cool-sounding cache I learned about, but I gotta tell you, there it this other cacher who logged it recently, and ... well, that just ruined it for me. It’s not because of anything he did – he didn’t spoil anything in his log, he didn’t trade unfairly, and he apparently re-hid the container the way he found it. In fact, he was a perfect example of an ideal cacher in every way – but what totally destroyed my hopes for fun was his reason for finding it. How can I possibly enjoy caches when other people are finding them for reasons that are different from mine?"

 

Or: How does Finder A’s motivation for finding a given cache "diminish the value" of that cache for the cache owner?

 

"Well, this dude found and logged my cache the other day. He didn’t spoil anything in his log, he didn’t trade unfairly, and he apparently re-hid the container the way he found it. In fact, he was a perfect example of an ideal cacher in every way – except that he apparently used his find to count toward some kind of fun challenge he has taken on and appears to be enjoying. Can you imagine? How can I possibly enjoy my cache when people are having fun finding it for such improper reasons?"

 

... but I still don't think that the cache owner can tell me what lists I can build. Or what stats I can create out of my finds. Both as a practical matter, and as a matter of behaving well in the game.

Agreed.

 

Presuming to tell good, guideline-compliant, rights-respecting cachers how they should or should not enjoy their game is always rude. Such whiners are out of line. My suggestion is to simply ignore them and find whatever caches you want to find no matter what your reasons.

 

There are far worse things for a cache owner to worry about than to wring one’s hands over a good cacher’s motivations. Heck, anytime a person sets a container out in public and publishes the location on the internet he should consider himself lucky if he ever sees that container again. When it truly goes bad, there is little one can do. Why, then, would anyone want to go looking for reasons to complain when it goes as planned? Caches are hidden to be found by cachers, right?

 

I can easily understand being annoyed at a bad cachers' trouble-causing actions. What I don’t understand is being annoyed at a good cachers' unauthorized thoughts.

 

My thanks in advance to anyone who can explain it to me.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Presuming to tell good, guideline-compliant, rights-respecting cachers how they should or should not enjoy their game is always rude. Such whiners are out of line. My suggestion is to simply ignore them and find whatever caches you want to find no matter what your reasons....

 

Agreed. You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules. This site can impose rules on what kinds of caches they will list but sincethey still staunchly proclaim that cache owners, not this site are responsible for caches. It's the onwers call. this site's sole choice is to archive the listing. Finders sole choice is to comply or not and if they don't, have their log deleted. They get a choice. Just not the "My find trumps your wishes you evil cache owner."

[+sbell111]

...Presuming to tell good, guideline-compliant, rights-respecting cachers how they should or should not enjoy their game is always rude. Such whiners are out of line. My suggestion is to simply ignore them and find whatever caches you want to find no matter what your reasons....

 

Agreed. You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules. This site can impose rules on what kinds of caches they will list but sincethey still staunchly proclaim that cache owners, not this site are responsible for caches. It's the onwers call. this site's sole choice is to archive the listing. Finders sole choice is to comply or not and if they don't, have their log deleted. They get a choice. Just not the "My find trumps your wishes you evil cache owner."

The problem with that logic is that using the cache find as part of some other challenge does not exist within the purview of the cache owner. The cache owner has as much authority over how someone logs a third-party challenge cache as he does in telling you whether you are allowed to eat pizza.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The cache owner has as much authority over how someone logs a third-party challenge cache as he does in telling you whether you are allowed to eat pizza.

 

Now I think we are getting close to the same page on the issue.

I agree Joe Citizen can't tell Jack Pizzaeater if he can eat pizza. However Joe can tell Jack not to eat it on his porch. If Jack has any respect at all for his fellow man he wouldn't.

 

That said, I don't allow cigarette buts to be flicked in my yard. There they are just the same. Some doof flicks it as they drive by and I get to clean up the mess. If they ever put smoking up to a vote, my vote is going to be swayed by Joe Flickbutt. The point here is that while the owner may have a preference, we both know real control is limited to those willing to oblige.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

What makes no sence to me in this thread is actual animosity twoards a cache owners whos request is easy to honor even if you don't like it or understand it.

 

You're assuming that the request is easy to honor. I'd assume the opposite. For one thing, it was only recently added to his caches. That means that the cachers who are busily building their bookmarked lists that include his cache, have already found it, and haven't read his request. It wasn't there when they found his hide....

 

To clarify. Easy to honor for someone who reads the request. Stale data is another problem.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not sure if some folks just don't get it, don't care, or are arguing simply for sport as some of what I'm reading is completely off topic to finders respecting the reason a cache owner put the cache out to begin with. In this case it wasn't simply so folks can log a challenge cache. Some seem to think, from what I'm reading, that there is no need to respect an owner's wishes at all. What's really ironic is some of these same folks argued for the validity of ALRs! Now, that boggles the mind. They've gone from one extreme to the other. I guess it's no fun to be a moderate or advocate balance.

 

There must be a balance. No, I don't think an owner should deny valid finds anymore than a finder should ignore a reasonable, valid request. I don't think there's anything wrong with including a cache in a challenge. The point is using a cache in a challenge. Is there any reason that one has to publicly say they're using any particular cache in a challenge? I wouldn't think so. As for bookmarks, is there a reason that the bookmark is public? Couldn't you get by with it being simply shared? What purpose is there for making it public, anyway? If a challenge participant is not a PM they pretty much have to manually make a list anyway, right? Why should there be anything written in any log that states that the cache was used in a challenge? I know the SC Delorme Challenge doesn't require such a thing. And for those challenges that so, what's the point?

 

While I don't mind any of our caches being included in the criteria for a challenge just be advised that's not the reason I placed it. When I do mind is when the reason you find the cache and my reason for placing it don't mesh.

 

EDIT: dang wordo.

Edited June 22, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

...The cache owner has as much authority over how someone logs a third-party challenge cache as he does in telling you whether you are allowed to eat pizza.

Now I think we are getting close to the same page on the issue.

I agree Joe Citizen can't tell Jack Pizzaeater if he can eat pizza. However Joe can tell Jack not to eat it on his porch. If Jack has any respect at all for his fellow man he wouldn't.

Your analogy isn't quite on point. Jack isn't trying to eat his pizza on Joe's porch. He wants to pick up a pizza on his way home from Joe's house. Since Joe is not affect by the pizza, Jack chooses to ignore Joe's demand that he live a pizza-free existence. Edited June 22, 2009 by sbell111

[+BrrrMo]

So from reading this Thread when I do hide a Cache I am going to put in the description:

 

Do not use a GPSr to find

Do not log the find with anything but a #2 pencil

After you have found and logged walk backwards for 50' when you leave

If you use this Cache in a Challenge, you must pay me $50, if the challenge is taking you from West to East. If it is taking you North to South the charge is $25.

Any one who logs it without following these request will have there log deleted

 

If I put the above info in the description will it be rejected because of the ALR's?

 

[CoyoteRed]

If I put out a cache and ask "don't hunt if the gate is closed" I expect the request to be respected. Otherwise, I might just have to archive the cache.

 

Selfish cachers will go around the closed gate disrespecting my request--even after reading it. The result is the land owner looking to me as to why such a thing happened and, thusly, asking me to remove the cache.

 

So, whose rights are paramount: the owner or the seeker?

Edited June 22, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+rjb43nh]

CoyoteRed-"There must be a balance. No, I don't think an owner should deny valid finds anymore than a finder should ignore a reasonable, valid request."

A valid find is generally considered signing the log book, no real problem here. The problem is what is a valid request by the cache owner. Asking that the cache container is replaced as found or not posting spoilers are valid but asking for something that is an ALR, like not logging the cache if you've been to some other cache, or you may find another cache later, is not valid.

[+KBI]

You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules.

In this case it wasn't simply so folks can log a challenge cache. Some seem to think, from what I'm reading, that there is no need to respect an owner's wishes at all.

So then, if I understand correctly, both of you guys are in full support of the OP enforcing his "Don't use my cache for your challenge!" demand as an Additional Logging Requirement on this website – despite the recent rule change?

[+KBI]

If I put out a cache and ask "don't hunt if the gate is closed" I expect the request to be respected. Otherwise, I might just have to archive the cache.

 

Selfish cachers will go around the closed gate disrespecting my request--even after reading it. The result is the land owner looking to me as to why such a thing happened and, thusly, asking me to remove the cache.

 

So, whose rights are paramount: the owner or the seeker?

That analogy is not relevant to this thread.

 

Nobody has argued in favor of encouraging cache seekers to take actions that might cause trouble. The question being discussed here concerns only the finder’s motives – his thoughts – not his actions.

 

The relevant analogy would be if you were to put out a cache and non-jokingly insist: "Do not think about other people’s cache hides while hunting my cache."

 

As I said before: I can easily understand being annoyed at a bad cachers' trouble-causing actions. What I don’t understand is being annoyed at a good cachers' unauthorized thoughts -- or why in the world any cache owner would even want to control a seekers thoughts in the first place.

[+bflentje]

You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules.

In this case it wasn't simply so folks can log a challenge cache. Some seem to think, from what I'm reading, that there is no need to respect an owner's wishes at all.

So then, if I understand correctly, both of you guys are in full support of the OP enforcing his "Don't use my cache for your challenge!" demand as an Additional Logging Requirement on this website – despite the recent rule change?

 

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

[+tozainamboku]

...The cache owner has as much authority over how someone logs a third-party challenge cache as he does in telling you whether you are allowed to eat pizza.

Now I think we are getting close to the same page on the issue.

I agree Joe Citizen can't tell Jack Pizzaeater if he can eat pizza. However Joe can tell Jack not to eat it on his porch. If Jack has any respect at all for his fellow man he wouldn't.

Your analogy isn't quite on point. Jack isn't trying to eat his pizza on Joe's porch. He wants to pick up a pizza on his way home from Joe's house. Since Joe is not affect by the pizza, Jack chooses to ignore Joe's demand that he live a pizza-free existence.

Personally I thought my analogy of eating pistachio ice cream because it was green was much more to the point. If you must have a pizza analogy it would have to go like this.

 

Joe sells pizza. He recommends that people reheat his pizza in a a conventional oven and not in a microwave. Jack Pizzaeater ignores Joe Pizzaseller's request and reheats his pizza in the microwave. He then goes on to Joe Pizzaseller's web site an writes a review of Joe's pizza. In his review Jack say he reheated the pizza in the microwave and it turned out OK. Joe deletes Jack's review because he didn't follow the request not to reheat the pizza in the microwave. Now of course Joe can request that you follow his instructions for reheating pizza, but he can't actually go to your house and force you to follow his instructions. However he may feel that if you publicly announce that you didn't follow his instructions that may indicate you really didn't enjoy his pizza the way he intended. What's more it that it might encourage others to follow this example and not have the best reheated pizza. Jack may not be able to tell the difference between pizza reheated in a microwave and pizza reheated in a conventional oven. But Joe truly believe thats his pizza is better if reheated in a conventional oven.

 

Edited June 22, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Renegade Knight]

You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules.

In this case it wasn't simply so folks can log a challenge cache. Some seem to think, from what I'm reading, that there is no need to respect an owner's wishes at all.

So then, if I understand correctly, both of you guys are in full support of the OP enforcing his "Don't use my cache for your challenge!" demand as an Additional Logging Requirement on this website – despite the recent rule change?

 

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

[+Renegade Knight]

You shouldn't tell cache owners to stuff it and ignore their request because you can't be bothered with it. They own the cache and that supercese everthing including listing rules.

In this case it wasn't simply so folks can log a challenge cache. Some seem to think, from what I'm reading, that there is no need to respect an owner's wishes at all.

So then, if I understand correctly, both of you guys are in full support of the OP enforcing his "Don't use my cache for your challenge!" demand as an Additional Logging Requirement on this website – despite the recent rule change?

 

The rule change applies to this sites williness to publish or host cache listings. Thus if an owner insists what would be an ALR in this sites opinion, the cache would be archived.

 

However , I do think an owner is free to set the rules for their cache just as I believe they are free to ignore my rules of thumb and place what the heck they want. Doesn't mean finders will like it but since they are solely responsible for their cache, that's the way the ball bounces.

[+BrrrMo]

Question. I found a Cache 6 months ago. Then I got into a Challege hunt. Can I or can I not use this Cache as part of the Challege? When I first found it there was nothing on the Cache page telling me not to use it in a Challenge.

[+bflentje]

Question. I found a Cache 6 months ago. Then I got into a Challege hunt. Can I or can I not use this Cache as part of the Challege? When I first found it there was nothing on the Cache page telling me not to use it in a Challenge.

 

Depends on the challenge. Almost ALL of the challenges I've completed (a lot), past cache finds qualify. And if I were you, I'd go out of my way to make sure you log the find on said caches indicating which challenge the find belongs to.

[+bflentje]

Question. I found a Cache 6 months ago. Then I got into a Challege hunt. Can I or can I not use this Cache as part of the Challege? When I first found it there was nothing on the Cache page telling me not to use it in a Challenge.

 

Depends on the challenge. Almost ALL of the challenges I've completed (a lot), past cache finds qualify. And if I were you, I'd go out of my way to make sure you log the find on said caches indicating which challenge the find belongs to.

 

Just realized I read your question wrong. Your question poses an interesting dilemma... I personally wouldn't be worrying about it in the first place.

Edited June 22, 2009 by bflentje

[+KBI]

I'm not sure if some folks just don't get it, don't care, or are arguing simply for sport ...

I see.

 

So if someone disagrees with your viewpoint, it can ONLY be because they are (1) stupid, (2) irresponsible or (3) a troll.

 

That’s good. I’m pleased to see you’re keeping an open mind regarding the soundness of your own views, and that you value and respect your fellow cacher’s opinions.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The cache owner has as much authority over how someone logs a third-party challenge cache as he does in telling you whether you are allowed to eat pizza.

Now I think we are getting close to the same page on the issue.

I agree Joe Citizen can't tell Jack Pizzaeater if he can eat pizza. However Joe can tell Jack not to eat it on his porch. If Jack has any respect at all for his fellow man he wouldn't.

Your analogy isn't quite on point. Jack isn't trying to eat his pizza on Joe's porch. He wants to pick up a pizza on his way home from Joe's house. Since Joe is not affect by the pizza, Jack chooses to ignore Joe's demand that he live a pizza-free existence.

We aren't on the same page after all. My anology is exactly on point since it illistrates my point. I don't even understand your counter point and perhaps I didn't understand your orginal point either.

 

Back to the cache. The OP said. "Don't use my gamepiece for your game". Others are saying, "we can use your gamepiece if we want it's none of your say" Seems pretty simple. Pick one as which you believe is right.

 

Maybe your couner is saying. "If the finder found the cache before he even know about the challeng and then later used it as part of the challenge then it shouldn't matter". That's a fair question. My take would be the log is good at the time, it should be good later. If the finder became aware of the owners whishes later they should still try to honor them. If this ever goes to trial we can argue the nuance. The larger argument (and simpler actually) would then be "can an owner change the rules of their cache after it's published. I say Yes.

[+KBI]

However , I do think an owner is free to set the rules for their cache just as I believe they are free to ignore my rules of thumb and place what the heck they want. Doesn't mean finders will like it but since they are solely responsible for their cache, that's the way the ball bounces.

So if I make it clear in my cache description that I won’t tolerate anyone thinking about other people’s caches while hunting my cache, you support that?

 

And if you log my cache, and I delete your log because I suspect you were reminiscing about one of Mushtangs cache hides at the moment you were signing the logbook at my cache – you support that as well?

 

Fine, but that still doesn’t answer my question: Why would any cache owner even care to establish such a silly rule in the first place?

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm not sure if some folks just don't get it, don't care, or are arguing simply for sport ...

I see.

 

So if someone disagrees with your viewpoint, it can ONLY be because they are (1) stupid, (2) irresponsible or (3) a troll.

 

That’s good. I’m pleased to see you’re keeping an open mind regarding the soundness of your own views, and that you value and respect your fellow cacher’s opinions.

 

To truly debate a point you have to have common ground. The things in common that you both belive. Then you build from there. To counter a point it helps if you actually understand the point. If folks don't understand the point, don't care to understand the point, or are unwilling to try becasue they just love to argue, you can't make any progress whatsoever on the debate.

 

You seem to be focusing on the sport without striving to actually be good at it. Your skill is picking key items to obfuscate the larger debate. However your understanding is either lacking, or you fully understand and choose to use your style which would make you something of a troll since a troll.

[+KBI]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

[+Renegade Knight]

... Why would any cache owner even care to establish such a silly rule in the first place?

 

Same reason some people hate lima beans. I could care less if someone logs my cache as part of a challenge. I dislike NM logs. Why? They rub me wrong? Wny? It's a pet peeve? Why? Just becusae.

 

Everone is different. We all have our nits. Personally I think we are programed to have pet peeves and that we don't always get a choice about what it is any more than a pregnant woman gets a choice on what may make her sick for no particular reason.

 

My entire point is that this owner has that peeve and it's easy enough to accomodate it.

 

As for your "don't be thinking about another cache while hunting mine". I think it's even more silly than the peeve mentioned in this thread. My advice there is that you will have better luck if you don't mention the rule since it's self defeating. But if you must, knock yourself out. I'd probably say "whoops" and log a note.

[+Renegade Knight]

The bottom line is, any CO bothered by a challenge log or their cache being on a bookmark is just plain too hung up on themselves. Get over it.

Bottom line. If any finder can't be botherd to honor an owners request. They should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

In that case, how about a little experiment to see whether you truly believe that?

 

I am in fact a cache owner, and this is my request: I hereby request that you, Renegade Knight, find only MY caches from now on, and nobody else’s. I only want you to enjoy mine, period. If you really must seek non-KBI caches, if my caches aren’t good enough for you, and if you truly feel you can't be bothered to honor my request, then you should give it up, go home, and quit participating.

 

Fair enough?

 

Nice. Now get it published. Alas your authority is on your caches only. When you make rule that impact others peoples caches you have exceeded your authority. You could make that. "RK if you hunt one of my caches you have to hunt them all to log any of them." That's within your authority as an owner.

 

You could even go as far as. "RK special rule: If you find a cache, you can only log them in sequence with no non KBI caches found inbetween your finds of KBI caches."

Edited June 22, 2009 by Renegade Knight