Curse of the FTF Caches

[+goodsamfam]

here is the cache description :

 

This is the Second Stop on our Juneau Adventures With a twist in this cache for the FTF Fairly easy terrain gravel hard pack trail wide enough to drive a car on but no access for a car. cache is on the historic trail . There is a metal object there if you know what it is or don't please put your guess in your log . the beach is near by as well as saw two porcupines the day rather big so exercise cation if you your not familiar with porcupines

"Curse of the First to Find"!

Guidelines for this series are below:

1) The FTF'er should place the next cache in the series "Juneau Adv. 2 Curse of the FTF #" within 4 weeks, otherwise the rumors hold the curse will prevent you from ever getting another FTF ever again!!!

2) The cache you place can be any type of cache (Puzzle, Multi, Traditional) and should be large enough to hold The Cache Movers Geocoin

3) if you have a previous FTF with in the last 14days Please allow ample time for others to share in the this series

4) If you find this cache before other cachers, but do not wish to continue the game:?a) Do not take the "Curse of the FTF" travel bug.? but In your log entry, state that you are not participating in the FTF game.?This will give the next finder the option to continue the game.

5) If you choose to play along.?a) Take the "Curse of the FTF" Cache Movers Geocoin and note that you will place the next cache in your on-line log.? Hide a " - Curse of the FTF" cache and place the"Curse of the FTF" Cache Movers Geocoin in your new cache.?c) Include this set of guidelines in your cache listing for the series.

6) Once you have placed the next cache in the series and it is published, this cache will be renamed to "-Juneau Adv. 2 Curse of the FTF # (Your Caching Name)"

 

My Thoughts:

 

There is a small number of caches in the area I live Juneau AK. I decided to place a cache with the FTF reward is a curse where if you chose to take the FTF you have to place a new cache with in a pre determined time period And that will fit the geo-coin. If you chose not to participate you leave the FTF coin for some one else who would care to participate.

 

The Reviewers thoughts:

"Play it Forward" and "Curse of the FTF" type of caches are just too strong in their encouragement of newbies to hide caches they're often not yet ready to hide". "I'm sorry, but one thing I cannot publish is a cache that asks, or even suggests, that a cache finder hide another cache as a condition for logging a find. No offense intended, but that tends to lead to poor quality caches placed by newbies not yet ready to hide their own cache but eager to participate under the perceived pressure to hide one."

 

What I am asking from the community is the communities positions on these caches i know there are currently several versions of these caches out there but there seems to ba a lack of guidelines for this or I am unaware of theses guidelines

 

Thank you in advance for your input.

[GOF and Bacall]

To be honest this kind of stuff fails after the first couple of rounds.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I would tend to agree very much with what the reviewer has stated.

[+t4e]

yeap, the reviewer is right

 

plus, isn't that a ALR?

[+CanDMan47]

I'd also agree with the reviewers opinion. But it's just that, an opinion. He does, from what I understand, though, have the final say for his area, so you are bound by that determination.

 

Also, I don't think this would qualify as an ALR, as you can choose not to continue it if you wish.

[GOF and Bacall]

yeap, the reviewer is right

 

plus, isn't that a ALR?

4) If you find this cache before other cachers, but do not wish to continue the game:?a) Do not take the "Curse of the FTF" travel bug.? but In your log entry, state that you are not participating in the FTF game.?This will give the next finder the option to continue the game.

 

That pretty much negates an ALR issue.

[BCProspectors]

Definitely agree with the reviewer. It would cause too many pointless caches to be hidden. There should be something in the guidelines about this.

[+goodsamfam]

ok a little more on my re-search not saying this is the best idea but up to the cachers in the area if they would like this so here is some of what I found with theses series

 

10 series :Greater London Series FTFers

# / Cache Name / GC Code / FTF

1 New River Head GC1N994 Loony Londo

2 Barnet Church GC1NA65 Rastan

3 The Mill Field GC1QC5M Ducktagnan

4 Winchmore Hill GC1QVVV Renatopivano

5 Abney Park GC1RMNK james and sadie

6 Frieze! GC1TG5G groosome

7 Westway Sports GC1VNEQ The Bongtwashes

8 M1 Jct 3 GC1W0BQ bones1

9 Spur Road GC1XG6T rodz

10 WTF GC1XGN8 Belplasca

11 Hail Caesar GC215C2 TheAardvarkFamily

12 Henry’s Gateway GC221PG bevroutley

13 Beverley’s Bank GC22D8R dancingdogs

14 The Cat’s Back GC2322G Madam Cholet

15 Cartman's Cache GC23HMX Ryuchan

16 Jewels Wood GC23VCE beetstarz

17 Padmall Woods GC24ZHN Warren Wanderers

 

2)here is another 20

1. Aloha! & Wahine Eye Spy by GC10EPC - Curse Lifted March 1, 2007.

2. BBMTC by GC119EP - Curse Lifted April 7, 2007.

3. JohnsonsandKids by GC11Z1X - Curse Lifted May 11, 2007.

4. JEM61 by GC12TVC - Curse Lifted May 28, 2007.

5. Moongecko by GC137MM - Curse Lifted July 30, 2007.

6. Dorsie by GC14PH5 - Curse Lifted August 26, 2007.

7. Binghamjd by GC152RP - Curse lifted October 24 2007.

8. GASTECH by GC1335D – Curse lifted December 29, 2007.

9. Smarple by GC1810C – Curse lifted February 28, 2008.

10. WeirdHarold by GC1A2MB – Curse lifted April 20, 2008.

11. Barkfeather by GC1AC7R - Curse lifted May 29, 2008.

12. Goingtopot by GC1CNW6 - Curse lifted July 13, 2008.

13. The Girls and I by GC1DKE5 - Cursed lifted Aug 9th, 2008.

14. BeachBeans by GC1F2R3 - Cursed lifted August 24, 2008.

15. Coupleocachers by GC1FK3J - Cursed lifted September 7, 2008.

16. ZMuggler by GC1FTJ7 - Cursed lifted on September 20, 2008.

17. Greykitties by GC1GN95 - Curse lifted on November 25, 2008.

18. CW & Spouse & Dog by GC1JDVE – Curse lifted on January 1, 2009.

19. Shutterpro by GC1K5R2 - Curse lifted on January 26, 2009.

20. Shig by GC1M389 - Curse lifted on March 21, 2009.

21. MasterTrainer by GC1NDVH - Curse lifted on May 19th, 2009.

22. Suesmith2 by GC1RE6J - Curse lifted on June 18, 2009.

23. cpttango30 by GC1TR95 - Curse lifted on July 20,2009.

 

So i have read some of these logs for these caches and people seem to like them and they seem to be common in areas.

 

Im not promoting but I do see lots of potential just some devils advocate info please keep the opinions coming with out opinions we will never know.

 

Clarification the cache prize is a geo coin with the curse not the cache itself

 

great input keep it coming

[knowschad]

Sounds like a "seed cache" to me, and they haven't been allowed for several years, even prior to the ALR ban, for exactly the reason that your reviewer stated. They tend to lead to mindless & needless hides just to get a smiley.

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds like a "seed cache" to me, and they haven't been allowed for several years, even prior to the ALR ban, for exactly the reason that your reviewer stated. They tend to lead to mindless & needless hides just to get a smiley.

 

Yeah, he's probably rejecting it on the "seed cache" basis. And I note in your "curse lifted" dates in your 2nd post, the dates are all before the ban on ALR's.

 

For the record, I would say this is a horrible idea, even when these were allowed. Keep in mind though, the forum does not represent the Geocaching community as a whole.

[+roziecakes]

I also agree with the reviewer.

[+tozainamboku]

I disagree with the reviewer. If the cache merely suggest that FTF hides a new cache it seem it would not be an ALR and would not require anyone to hide a cache who does not feel like hiding one. I'm not sure if the use of a cursed travel bug in this instance is enough to make the cache OK however. Someone may take the travel bug without reading the cache page. If the travel bug has instructions attached, they may not be read when bug is taken or they may have gotten separated from the bug. A cacher may take the bug and later find out they are supposed to hide a new cache and put the bug in it. What if they don't want to hide cache? Would they be allowed to place the bug elsewhere?

 

Also this cache may have an ALR as it requires some who does not take the bug to say so in their log. Would a log be deleted if some fails to log that they left the bug? Would a log be deleted if someone took the bug and failed to hide a new cache?

 

Even when ALRs were allowed, TPTB decided that requiring a new cache to be placed as a condition of logging the cache was not a good idea. So the reviewer's objection is based on the fact that TPTB didn't want people to be forced to hide caches. In most of the areas where caches like this are placed, finders are pretty willing to hide something if asked. I've seen several series approved where the wording made it clear that participation was voluntary.

[+Team Black-Cat]

So the game is over the first time the cache is found? What happens after that?

[Keystone]

ok a little more on my re-search not saying this is the best idea but up to the cachers in the area if they would like this so here is some of what I found with theses series

 

{long list of caches snipped}

 

The listing guidelines caution you that publication of a past cache does not serve as precedent for publishing your cache. Usually older caches are "grandfathered." We used to publish moving caches, too.

 

So yes, there are lots of "Curse of the FTF" caches. But, you will have a tough time with any cache design that requires or even encourages the hiding of another cache in connection with logging a find.

[+goodsamfam]

ok im seeing this a lot so lets clarify there is no requirement to be able to log the cache, that you must set a new cache. you would only set a new cache if you chose to do so and you are FTF and take the Geo coin in the cache, The cache after the verry first person takes the coin is a standard traditional.

 

I would also like to thank those of you who have put in you info its a great help

 

tozainamboku: great point i need to not if you find the coin and take it and wish not to participate to place it in another cache great point.

 

thanks again great feed back.

[+Walts Hunting]

Many people grab bugs while at the cache and look to see what their mission is later (if at all). The TB's purpose would die a quick death.

[+wimseyguy]

I suppose one would actually need to believe in curses and hexes to consider this true encouragement to hide another cache? But people should only hide caches when their muse tells them it is time. Not when a Curse of the FTF/Seed Cache/Mommas Little Helper/etc. tells them it is a good idea.

 

Perhaps these made sense to some a few years ago, but I don't really think so.

[+buzzy_cacher]

The reviewers will put a stop to it. There is a FTF series I found one day that died after 13 caches.

 

Here is the first one in the series: FTF001: Welcome to Honea Path! GCXEMY

 

Snippet of Description:

 

The First To Find project is a unique project designed to reward those cachers who are quick enough to snag the FTF. It started with clemsonbeav's FTF001: Welcome to Honea Path! on 31 Jul 06. Whoever is the FTF at a FTF cache then has a responsibility. That cacher then must go and hide a cache to be the next cache in the FTF project, numbering the cache accordingly. Additional instructions to the FTF cacher may be provided. Hopefully, this project will quickly spread across the state, then the nation, then the world! If you are FTF, please do your part to expedite this project's spreading! If, however, you are FTF and are unable or unwilling to continue this project, please make it clear that you are deferring until the next finder. There is no obligation to participate! Just sign and get your smilie if that's what you'd like! Once the FTF has been claimed, please continue to visit this cache!

 

---

 

I contacted the owner of the cache about why the FTF Project died out. His response:

 

Unfortunately, the FTF project died out. I think there was some

troubles with the reviewers, something like how it can't be required

to hide another cache by finding one. Oh well, it was fun while it

lasted! If you want to try and continue the series, feel free...you

can start with 014, or restart...whatever! Good luck!

[+nikcap]

...

The Reviewers thoughts:

"Play it Forward" and "Curse of the FTF" type of caches are just too strong in their encouragement of newbies to hide caches they're often not yet ready to hide". "I'm sorry, but one thing I cannot publish is a cache that asks, or even suggests, that a cache finder hide another cache as a condition for logging a find. No offense intended, but that tends to lead to poor quality caches placed by newbies not yet ready to hide their own cache but eager to participate under the perceived pressure to hide one."

 

I'm usually behind Groundspeak and it's reviewers 100% on their stances, but I think they are slightly off the mark here. First off, what constitutes a poor quality cache?

Is it a parking lot micro or cache where the container is a Chinese soup container?

 

Believe me, most hiders don't need any encouragement to place lame, thoughtless, un-inspired caches. I don't see how a "curse" has anything to do with it.

 

If everyone is so concerned about cache quality, perhaps all cache descriptions and locations need to be more closely scrutinized. The mention that a container is a take out container or film canister or for that matter anything other then a lock-n-lock or ammo can get rejected.

 

I'd actually like to see some real world examples of how a "Curse of the FTF" hide is poor and compare it to a sample of other caches in the area.

 

The point is, perhaps it's time to curing the cause and not treating the symptom.

 

 

The listing guidelines caution you that publication of a past cache does not serve as precedent for publishing your cache. Usually older caches are "grandfathered." We used to publish moving caches, too.

 

So yes, there are lots of "Curse of the FTF" caches. But, you will have a tough time with any cache design that requires or even encourages the hiding of another cache in connection with logging a find.

 

Yet, a dozen of FTF curses have been published elsewhere around the US and Internationally since this posting, so perhaps everyone isn't on the same page yet. (Browse to page 8 there are two cache with "new" icons! )

 

The text of the Curse guidelines are clear enough that I don't see how anyone that is not ready to place a cache is pressured into placing a cache.

 

One final question, when did FTF become an actual concern or stat to Groundspeak?

Up until now, I thought the company, the moderators and reviewers did a good job at distancing themselves from this silly "stat" that the obsessed players created.

It would be a shame to see GC.com get into the FTF frenzy.

 

Full Disclosure: I do have a personal interest in the fate of the "Curse of the FTF" series as our local Geocaching group start a series this year. I've found one and hid one. The series in general has been a big success, has drawn the community closer together and has created a little more comradely amongst the locals. Not one cache in the series has been considered "poor" by any of the finders. Although, our series has a companion trophy TB that is rather large and will only fit in larger container or ammo can. So, perhaps when it comes to geocaching, bigger is better.

[+njdc24]

here is just my thoughts on this..

 

how is it possible that this type of cache causes "encouragement of newbies to hide caches they're often not yet ready to hide" and "tends to lead to poor quality caches placed by newbies not yet ready to hide their own cache but eager to participate under the perceived pressure to hide one."

 

when exactly is a person ready to take on the responsibility of placing a cache? (this is not just a statement that should be stated about newbies)

 

poor quality caches???...anyone can place a poor quality cache...no matter how long they have been placing/hiding caches.

 

the log for this type of cache clearly states an option of participating or not participating. (see below)

 

4) If you find this cache before other cachers, but do not wish to continue the game:?a) Do not take the "Curse of the FTF" travel bug.? but In your log entry, state that you are not participating in the FTF game.?This will give the next finder the option to continue the game.

 

no where does it state that a "finder" (newbie or experienced) MUST participate to claim their find. It just states not to take the travel bug/Geocoin

 

#5 clearly states IF YOU CHOOSE..to play along...

 

5) If you choose to play along.?a) Take the "Curse of the FTF" Cache Movers Geocoin and note that you will place the next cache in your on-line log.?cool.gif Hide a " - Curse of the FTF" cache and place the"Curse of the FTF" Cache Movers Geocoin in your new cache.?c) Include this set of guidelines in your cache listing for the series.

 

as well...when a cacher does place a cache of any type...isn't that actually a "Pay it Forward" situation??? you're not placing it for yourself to find...you are placing it for others to find..."Paying it Forward"

 

agree or disagree with the reviewer....?????? i just do not agree with the thought process behind their decision and them placing the blame on newbies .

[+tozainamboku]

i just do not agree with the thought process behind their decision and them placing the blame on newbies .

I just think that some people are a little careless in explaining why Groundspeak and reviewers are reluctant to publish caches that even encourage people to place caches and certainly would not publish a cache that required placement of a new cache in order to log a find.

 

It isn't an issue with newbies. It is an issue with the responsiblities of cache ownership. Anyone, regardless of experience, is welcome to hide a cache, presuming they have read and understood the cache placement requirements, including the cache maintenance requirements.

 

Back when ALR caches were allowed, requirements to place a new cache became very popular. Groundspeak and the reviewers realized that not everyone may want to hide a cache. Some people may be unwilling or unable to take on the responsibility to maintain a cache (or to maintain another cache). It seemed to be an unreasonable requirement for logging a find. The decision was made that you could not have an ALR that required someone to hide a new cache in order to log a find. Later, all additional logging requirements were banned. I believe at this point some reviewers may have decided that encouraging hides was bad too. Someone sitting on the fence about hiding a cache, might decide to hide one even though they were still not prepared to maintain it. Not being a reviewer, I am not privileged to the discussions on the super secret reviewer forum. Perhaps this is a new guideline. I suspect however that a curse of the FTF or similar cache could still be published so long as it is clearly optional to place a new cache.

 

The ALR change did make an exception for geoaching challenges. It is not clear if numbers of hides could be a challenge. The Knowledge Book on challenge caches states that a challenge may not require the publication of a new cache. (emphasis added). The problem with having a challenge based on caches already hidden would be that it may be seen as requiring someone who hasn't hidden those caches to hide some more.

Edited June 24, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+dcarbone]

The Reviewers thoughts:

"Play it Forward" and "Curse of the FTF" type of caches are just too strong in their encouragement of newbies to hide caches they're often not yet ready to hide". "I'm sorry, but one thing I cannot publish is a cache that asks, or even suggests, that a cache finder hide another cache as a condition for logging a find. No offense intended, but that tends to lead to poor quality caches placed by newbies not yet ready to hide their own cache but eager to participate under the perceived pressure to hide one."

 

This mod has poorly interpreted the description of these "Curse of the FTF" caches. Where does it state that you must hide a cache to log the find? It doesn't. In fact, the series that I participated in has the following additional note as part of the cache description:

 

Notes: To log this cache on-line, there is no requirement other then finding the physical container and signing logbook. Everyone who physically signs the logbook may log their find on-line; hopefully the FTF person will play along and place another cache, but it is in no way a requirement for logging your find.

 

When placing your FTF. Cache, remember that all rules set by Groundspeak regarding any cache placement apply. Caches that have a requirement to place additional caches as a condition of logging the find will not be approved. You can make a suggestion that the person does so, but it can't be required. Please include this note in your description or your cache may not get approved!

 

It is our intention to encourage well placed and thoughtful caches that will be fun to hunt. This concept has been implemented and is successful in Iowa, Nebraska, Northern Virginia and various other places. We hope that this series will be at least as good or better than other series.

Edited June 25, 2010 by dcarbone

[+TripCyclone]

1) The FTF'er should place the next cache in the series "Juneau Adv. 2 Curse of the FTF #" within 4 weeks, otherwise the rumors hold the curse will prevent you from ever getting another FTF ever again!!!

 

I ran into this same problem when I tried to start the series in my area. There were two problems I ran into. One was the hide location, which I quickly agreed was not a good place to hide a cache (hadn't looked at it the same way they had) and was willing to move it.

 

The second problem was a little harder to nail down and came down to the cache being against the guidelines. While I highly respect the reviewer I dealt with, the one concern I had with the scenario was that in our back and forth conversations, each arguement used for why it was against the guidelines were, from what I could see, not an actual issue. These were the arguements I got and my thoughts on them:

 

1. It is a seed cache. - not so sure about this. A seed cache typically has lots of "seed caches" inside, requiring finders to place the seed before claiming a find. In every variation of the "FTF Curse" series that I've ever seen, not once was the placement of the next cache ever required to claim the find. As quoted above, placement of the next cache is only done by the person claiming FTF AND not placing the cache within the listed time only means you are cursed from ever getting another FTF. It never says "You cannot claim the find until after you place the next cache." So arguements that this cache requires placement of a cache to claim a find are invalidated. I still don't understand how this keeps being listed as a reason for why this cache is against guidelines when the cache listing never requires it.

 

2. It is against challenge cache guidelines - ummm...not a challenge cache so not against challenge cache guidelines.

 

3. We frown on ALR's. - okay, I ran into this before ALR's were banned, but even with the ban in place, I fall back on this doesn't require a cache to be placed to claim a find, therefore it isn't an ALR.

 

4. This encourages bad hides placed quickly to claim a find. First, I again point out that claiming a find is not contingent on placing a cache. But about the bad hide part. Now I can understand the fear that this encourages bad cache placements. THAT would seem like a valid arguement. Yet, I'm in agreement with someone else who correctly commented that anyone can place a bad cache, even if they have a lot of experience with geocaching. Use of the "newbie not being experienced enough to place caches" is a poor arguement, though I can again see where a reviewer is coming from on this one. I've frequently seen forum discussions about having a requirement stating that a beginner has a certain number of finds before they are allowed to place a cache and usually see something about "how can you place a number on experience" or "plenty of experienced cachers place bad caches", and that at no point in the near future will TPTB put a restriction on this. If we aren't going to put a restriction on it, then that arguement can't be used in this situation.

 

Also, in this case with the added note that if the person doesn't want to take part in the series, that the curse is with the coin so they can pass on the coin and subsequently not be affected by the curse...this cache does not place added encouragement for newbies to hide something they aren't ready to hide. If they aren't ready, they just pass up on the coin. So use of that reasoning, while seemingly a valid reason, isn't 100% accurate. I had not seen this little twist until this forum post.

 

In my situation, I realized I wasn't going to the cache approved, despite whatever logic I could provide. The reviewer has the final say in this. My reviewer did promise to ask for the advice of other reviewers, but I never did get an okay. I have talked with some other reviewers who do not see a problem with this style of hide, so it's obvious that there is a difference in opinion between even the reviewers. I'm sure some are deadset against it, no matter if their logic is flawed or dead on, so I don't see a consensus forming anytime soon without input from TPTB. Again, the reviewer has final say.

 

I suggest politely talking to your reviewer about why this cache does not REQUIRE a cache be placed to log a find, and point out the added rule about cachers being able to pass up the coin if desired. I'd even consider making sure the coin has a physical note explaining the rules attached in some way to it (maybe a baggie). Take a picture and provide that to the reviewer. Then, politely ask them if there is a way to reword the listing that would meet their satisfaction. Maybe it's the wording that bothers them and rewording it a bit will satisfy them and still get the cache approved. Maybe, just maybe, they might come to realize that they quickly passed judgement and that some of their arguements are already addressed in the listing, they just didn't notice it. I would suspect that this reviewer has heard about this cache style from another reviewer who didn't like it, and is automatically using those arguements without fully understanding how the Curse works. So talking with them might clear up any confusion. Just some thoughts.

 

Oh, and don't forget to be polite with the reviewer. Not a good person to have as an enemy.

[+dcarbone]

I'd even consider making sure the coin has a physical note explaining the rules attached in some way to it (maybe a baggie).

 

That's exactly what we did. The rules that appear in the cache description were laminated and tethered to the trackable.

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.as...a2-dc976f026347

Edited June 25, 2010 by dcarbone

[+Ladybug Kids]

Pedal Pushin and we created a cache full of caches as swag (sizes including ammo cans) in Fairbanks: Let's Make a Cache!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

 

The listing guidelines caution you that publication of a past cache does not serve as precedent for publishing your cache. Usually older caches are "grandfathered." We used to publish moving caches, too.

 

So yes, there are lots of "Curse of the FTF" caches. But, you will have a tough time with any cache design that requires or even encourages the hiding of another cache in connection with logging a find.

 

Yet, a dozen of FTF curses have been published elsewhere around the US and Internationally since this posting, so perhaps everyone isn't on the same page yet. (Browse to page 8 there are two cache with "new" icons! )

 

The text of the Curse guidelines are clear enough that I don't see how anyone that is not ready to place a cache is pressured into placing a cache.

 

One final question, when did FTF become an actual concern or stat to Groundspeak?

Up until now, I thought the company, the moderators and reviewers did a good job at distancing themselves from this silly "stat" that the obsessed players created.

It would be a shame to see GC.com get into the FTF frenzy.

 

Full Disclosure: I do have a personal interest in the fate of the "Curse of the FTF" series as our local Geocaching group start a series this year. I've found one and hid one. The series in general has been a big success, has drawn the community closer together and has created a little more comradely amongst the locals. Not one cache in the series has been considered "poor" by any of the finders. Although, our series has a companion trophy TB that is rather large and will only fit in larger container or ammo can. So, perhaps when it comes to geocaching, bigger is better.

 

Interesting point showing how many "curse of the FTF" caches have been published since the death of ALR's. But not surprising, I could show you hundreds of Travel Bug Prisons that have been published since the death of ALR's. Inconsistencies are inherent in the volunteer reviewer system.

 

The company, moderators and reviewers have done a good job at distancing themselves from the whole FTF thing as you state, but it has not escaped my attention that The rather new official blog and Twitter accounts have mentioned it a few times.

Edited June 26, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Eddie Robinson]

A copy of what I sent to Dalesman

 

Hi

I noticed you recently published GC2A8NZ, but the cotftf series are no longer to be allowed. I do not understand the reasoning behind this, as nobody forces a cacher to go be the ftf of the series, and therefore having to place a cache, it is down to the individual cacher to make the choice.

I was ftf on one of the caches in the series, and had already made the decision I would place a cache if I got the so called curse. once I had the ftf, it then fell on me to find a suitable location for a cache, as it would with anyone who places a cache

I do not see how this type of series could damage caching, as I would think that because the caches are placed by seperate individuals, there is more variety. although I do enjoy a good series, I would be more cautious over a particular area being flooded with a series of a high number of caches, or the fact that archived caches are not removed, as for instance I was out on a walk, and found a cache that was archived four months ago

I hope the cotftf type of series can be resurected, and allowed to go on

regards

eddie

 

his reply

 

Many thanks for your comments which would have more impact if placed on the relevant thread of the Forum.

 

if anyone knows where else to post this please contact me or feel free to copy and paste it

[+niraD]

I do not understand the reasoning behind this, as nobody forces a cacher to go be the ftf of the series, and therefore having to place a cache, it is down to the individual cacher to make the choice.

An ALR that applies only to the first person to find a cache is still an ALR.

[+dcarbone]

I do not understand the reasoning behind this, as nobody forces a cacher to go be the ftf of the series, and therefore having to place a cache, it is down to the individual cacher to make the choice.

An ALR that applies only to the first person to find a cache is still an ALR.

 

No, the first person to find does not have to hide a new cache. They can still log the find and let someone else take the FTF trackable.

[+roziecakes]

What we do often with our caches is we place a premade cache container with swag and logbook as a prize, and a person can choose to take it if they want to, or they can leave it. I'll mention that it's in there on the cache page... but in no way is anyone required to take it, and really it's swag in the container, and not part of the cache find itself.

[+bflentje]

Sounds like a "seed cache" to me, and they haven't been allowed for several years, even prior to the ALR ban, for exactly the reason that your reviewer stated. They tend to lead to mindless & needless hides just to get a smiley.

 

Have you looked at the maps lately? There are needless and mindless caches popping up like weeds around here with no seed caches being used.

[AZcachemeister]

I suppose one would actually need to believe in curses and hexes to consider this true encouragement to hide another cache? But people should only hide caches when their muse tells them it is time. Not when a Curse of the FTF/Seed Cache/Mommas Little Helper/etc. tells them it is a good idea.

 

Perhaps these made sense to some a few years ago, but I don't really think so.

 

This is my take on the subject.

 

People don't need to be 'encouraged' (coerced) into hiding caches they are not ready to hide.

[Mr.Yuck]

A copy of what I sent to Dalesman

 

Hi

I noticed you recently published GC2A8NZ, but the cotftf series are no longer to be allowed. I do not understand the reasoning behind this, as nobody forces a cacher to go be the ftf of the series, and therefore having to place a cache, it is down to the individual cacher to make the choice.

I was ftf on one of the caches in the series, and had already made the decision I would place a cache if I got the so called curse. once I had the ftf, it then fell on me to find a suitable location for a cache, as it would with anyone who places a cache

I do not see how this type of series could damage caching, as I would think that because the caches are placed by seperate individuals, there is more variety. although I do enjoy a good series, I would be more cautious over a particular area being flooded with a series of a high number of caches, or the fact that archived caches are not removed, as for instance I was out on a walk, and found a cache that was archived four months ago

I hope the cotftf type of series can be resurected, and allowed to go on

regards

eddie

 

his reply

 

Many thanks for your comments which would have more impact if placed on the relevant thread of the Forum.

 

if anyone knows where else to post this please contact me or feel free to copy and paste it

 

No idea what's going on here. Are you saying you corrected the reviewer that the CotFTF cache should not have been published? From the cache page it seems like the cache owner was forced to change the cache page, and not post a copy of the reviewer note telling them to change it? I could be wrong here.

 

But if you like to correct people, by all means please inform the cache owner that a nano is a micro, not "other".

[+rob3k]

There are quite a few of these going in my area, but they all include something like this in their list of ground rules:

 

"By way of clarification, there is no requirement besides the standard signing of the cache log to prevent you from logging this cache when found."

 

I don't have a problem with them, but haven't participated in any of the series (besides finding them after the FTF) to this point.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This is one of those rulings that I think has a deeper-than-obvious root.

 

In this case the idea is to avoid making folks feel like they must hide a cache. But how does a Reviewer decide which listing requires that a finder hide a cache and which one merely suggests it? Only by carefully reading and attempting to interpret the wording of the listing as the potential finder might understand it, and that's often not only way too tedious but a pretty darn hard thing to do!

 

Requiring anything, particularly hiding a cache in order to log one, is a bad idea for all the reasons set forth above. However, as far as the argument that having to hide a cache in order to log one leads to a lot of uninspired caches by people who won't maintain them, that's no different than what is being placed way too often every day and no effort is being made to stop that, so banning this type of cache to avoid that makes zero sense to me!

 

Suggesting that a cacher might like to take a cache from a seed pod and hide it, or that an FTFer might want to hide a cache is a totally different thing so long as the cacher can choose to log the cache without having to hide one.

 

The game exists because cachers hide caches. Everything about the game encourages anyone who so desires to hide a cache. That there is no requirement or expectation to hide a cache is right and proper, but nowhere else in the game is the suggestion that a cacher might choose to hide a cache a bad thing except in this type of cache listings!

 

That makes no sense to me, until I think of the dilemma that such gray areas always put Reviewers in.

 

The only way that a total ban of these type caches makes sense, and my guess is, that such things are part of an effort to relieve confusion amongst hiders, clarify the Guidelines and relieve our Reviewers from having to make judgment call decisions based on the exact wording of a listing as not only the Reviewer but also any potential reader might interpret it.

 

If the Guidelines were black-and-white, as an unfortunate number of cachers wish them to be, the Reviewer could simply allow or disallow certain things. If the Reviewer has to decide if certain wording is a suggestion or a requirement and try to interpret how any finder might read it then that places an undue burden on the Reviewer.