+the_bell_dingers Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 a Multi with stages inside the first. then the FTF takes the stages and places one somewhere else with the others inside. then the STF would find the first and second stage, place the third stage somewhere with the fourth inside, and so on. what do you think? Link to comment
OpinioNate Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's not a good idea to solicit cache placement from those who would otherwise not place a cache. The result is at best a boring cache and at worst a total disaster. Never let cache placement be a condition of finding a cache. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 A logistical nightmare for the reviewers especially concerning the saturation rule. Also - really at its heart - that would be a "moving" cache - that is a multi with a final that was ever shifting. Prohibited by current guidelines. Link to comment
+the_bell_dingers Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 well... in theory is always better than in practice... take helthcare reform as an example... Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 a Multi with stages inside the first. then the FTF takes the stages and places one somewhere else with the others inside. then the STF would find the first and second stage, place the third stage somewhere with the fourth inside, and so on. what do you think? I've been kicking this idea around for a few years on a "Trail of Tears" concept where each cache is a tear creating the trail progressivly, and the larger story is the backdrop for the cache. You have two probems (as do I if I ever place my trail of tears cache). First this site no longer encourages breeder caches. A breeder cache is one that spawns more caches as a condition of the find. The second is that a find can no longer have additional rules attached after you find the cache. This leaves you in the position of asking that they place a cache that fits your criteria before they can get the coords for your cache. Call it a puzzle, or mystery. This is another concept I've been kicking around that I do plan on doing (not with caches though). Since you have heard from a power that be early on in this thread, you would have to modify the concept for an approval of your cache listing. I'm not sure if my suggested modification is enough to qualify for listing. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 well... in theory is always better than in practice... take helthcare reform as an example... Nice shot. Our present system is broken. Utterly broken. As it it's twice as expensive as it needs to be for the crappy job it does, or you could say we could do twice the job for what we are paying but the broken parts prevent that. Either way works. I haven't tracked the reform, but if it's at least broken differntly we can learn and the 3rd reform can get it right based on the lessons of the past. Assuming congress can learn, and plan. They aren't so good at this. Social Security could have been fixed in the 80's (and should have been) so we don't have a looming problem now. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 A logistical nightmare for the reviewers especially concerning the saturation rule.... An artificial problem created by rules that nobody can explain well enough for Joe Cacher to follow. Still if multiple cachers place mutiple caches that tends to not be saturation where if Joe does the job all at once it can be. Link to comment
+the_bell_dingers Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 internet high five Renegade! Link to comment
Recommended Posts