No more Curse of the FTFs?!

[+The Blorenges]

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

 

It would be appropriate if you posted your comments in the new "Feedback Forum", on this topic:

 

Don't ban the Curse of the FTF.

 

MrsB

[+Palujia]

This thread has certainly sparked a lot of debate - going from Curse of the FTF to diatribes about newbies putting out trash caches ! As a relative newbie myself having only 38 finds to my name - although I'm not a number hound - having limited time to search, I am a bit miffed about the strongly held views by some of the more "senior" cachers. My fun was planning my first series - she who must be obeyed does not walk far so they had to be more of a "Drive by" rather than a walk for miles. She likes to oversee the locations. I put out the series one by one. In several of them the reviewer or the finders made suggestions which I took on board and corrected (e.g. the commercial magnetic keysafes leak and spoil logs. Container changed !) and also inadvertantly "advertised" a local Farm shop !!. But no one has said or even implied that they are in any way "inferior". We are not all tarred with the brush of "newbies shouldn't hide caches till they are more experienced" Also as an input to the Curse - an awful lot of us are not FTF chasers so, as one "poster" has said, the curse only applies to the FTF. Those of us trailing along at the rear can enjoy another series at our leisure !!

[+Sky King 36]

Oh lordy, I've been drawn into a darkside thread

...snip... FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

I am not sure I agree with this. This idea that "the easier it is to acquire the cache, the more likely the resulting hide will be shabby", I believe, is flawed logic. The quality of a hide is a direct function of the personality and experiences of a hider.

But that's not my biggest objection to seed caches. The single most important reason I don't think seed caches are appropriate is that, to use a British-ism, pressuring other people to hide a cache in any way, shape or form is just not cricket.

 

We may not be talking the same thing... Your argument may be against COFTF caches, but not seed caches. None of the seed caches I have seen have ever placed any pressure of any kind. For instance, I have a cache that I stock with seed caches that are loaded and ready to place. They're there if you want to take one and hide it, but there's no pressure, no expectation that by logging my cache you are supposed to take one.

[+FantasyRaider]

Quite simply[/b], and we all should already know this: requiring a new cache hide in order to log a find is simply an Additional Logging Requirement, which we no longer allow. Read all about it in the published guidelines. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

 

But, Don't all the cache pages state on all the Curse of the FTF: that this is no way a requirement for logging a find?

 

::Not that I'm complaining about the NEW rules ...like? ::

 

I only just found this thread!

[+FantasyRaider]

...snip... FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

 

I am not sure I agree with this. This idea that "the easier it is to acquire the cache, the more likely the resulting hide will be shabby", I believe, is flawed logic. The quality of a hide is a direct function of the personality and experiences of a hider.

 

We can rip on inexperienced hiders with lower quality hides all we want. But the fact is that it is hiders, not finders, that make the world go round. Unlike other phenomena, there is no chicken-and-the-egg paradox here. Every find, without ever an exception, is the result of a hider hiding a hide. Hiders sould be cultvated, coached, and held in high esteem by all of us, and the idea of "let's not encourage people to hide" is counter productive.

 

A poorly hidden, improperly rated, poorly sealed cache by a new hider is our opportunity to coach, cultvate, and develop a great future hider. If we as a community aren't willing to do this, then the fault lies with us, not with the hider. And instead the logs aways flame the "ne'er do well" as if they were an axe murderer, discouraging the new hider from ever trying again.