Jump to content

Reviewer claims new cache(s) will cause a FTF frenzy


StaticTank
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

 

Wow. what a buzzkill your responders to this have been for me. I am a newbie and have had the warm fuzzies about this community and hobby--until now. I just ventured out of the "getting started" topics and read on the "Who is lurking" forum how this kind of hostility is keeping people from posting in the forums. Now I see why. And one is a charter member??!! Should be ashamed of yourselves as experienced members. If you want to be a know it all, at least use your knowledge to be helpful rather than self righteous and arrogant.

 

Yes, I am replying to myself. I just wanted to add that even if you guys are spot on--you don't have to be jerks about it and belittle someone. Crap, I have enough people in other areas of my life that do that and I can't avoid it. Just saying...what are you telling us newbies--sign up to get this by choice?

The OP, StaticTank, is not a newbie. We started by being somewhat polite asking for the rest of the story. After he insisted the FTF frenzy was the whole story, we called BS. And it turned out to be BS. All the OP needed to do was give us the facts, and we would have been nice and said that we aggreed with the reviewer. End of story.

 

See, this is how we get a bad reputation around here. So few are paying attention to the fact that the troll comment had nothing to do with StaticTank. They just see the word troll and apparently don't read enough of the thread to understand it was directed at someone other than the OP. Even the OP didn't catch that. He thinks he was called a troll. But it isn't true. Has the popular opinion gone against him? Yes. But that doesn't mean anyone is disrespecting him. His OP and subsequent posts were not the acts of a troll. The trolls post was.

 

Hi--just to clarify, the troll comment had nothing to do with my rant. I just read the first few pages of replies and that just happened to be quoted in the reply I replied to.

Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

 

Wow. what a buzzkill your responders to this have been for me. I am a newbie and have had the warm fuzzies about this community and hobby--until now. I just ventured out of the "getting started" topics and read on the "Who is lurking" forum how this kind of hostility is keeping people from posting in the forums. Now I see why. And one is a charter member??!! Should be ashamed of yourselves as experienced members. If you want to be a know it all, at least use your knowledge to be helpful rather than self righteous and arrogant.

 

Yes, I am replying to myself. I just wanted to add that even if you guys are spot on--you don't have to be jerks about it and belittle someone. Crap, I have enough people in other areas of my life that do that and I can't avoid it. Just saying...what are you telling us newbies--sign up to get this by choice?

The OP, StaticTank, is not a newbie. We started by being somewhat polite asking for the rest of the story. After he insisted the FTF frenzy was the whole story, we called BS. And it turned out to be BS. All the OP needed to do was give us the facts, and we would have been nice and said that we aggreed with the reviewer. End of story.

 

See, this is how we get a bad reputation around here. So few are paying attention to the fact that the troll comment had nothing to do with StaticTank. They just see the word troll and apparently don't read enough of the thread to understand it was directed at someone other than the OP. Even the OP didn't catch that. He thinks he was called a troll. But it isn't true. Has the popular opinion gone against him? Yes. But that doesn't mean anyone is disrespecting him. His OP and subsequent posts were not the acts of a troll. The trolls post was.

 

Hi--just to clarify, the troll comment had nothing to do with my rant. I just read the first few pages of replies and that just happened to be quoted in the reply I replied to.

 

It's the very first part of the conversation you quoted. That is why I figured it was what you were talking about. If that is the case then sorry. He isn't right this time.

Link to comment

Wow. what a buzzkill your responders to this have been for me. I am a newbie and have had the warm fuzzies about this community and hobby--until now. I just ventured out of the "getting started" topics and read on the "Who is lurking" forum how this kind of hostility is keeping people from posting in the forums. Now I see why. And one is a charter member??!! Should be ashamed of yourselves as experienced members. If you want to be a know it all, at least use your knowledge to be helpful rather than self righteous and arrogant.

Well since we were all correct, not so much buzzkills now were we. We see this kind of thing alot were someone want their side of a dispute supported, so comes here and gives half the story. When we finaly get the rest of the story it becomes obvious the OP was withholding info. If you can't handle us calling others out, stay in the getting started fourm.

 

That said, if you post a serious question or issue and are honest, you will get a good response. there are plenty of examples of that.

 

Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a buzzkill or being negative. People here gave their honest opinions and tried to help as best they could with no real information and only one side of the story. No one here is being self-righteous and arrogant. That is YOUR PERCEPTION for whatever reason.

 

I'm sorry, but life is not all fluffy bunnies and rainbows. People will disagree with you once in a while. Sometimes we call people on their BS. That doesn't mean that we are rude. Read around for a while, and you'll see many positive responses from folks, especially to new people in many different threads.

 

That being said... stick around a while, you might find some conversation you might really like. As for that other person's comment about 'real life geocachers.' Well, I am a real life geocacher, and so are a lot of people around here. I come to the forums to learn and to help others, even if that means I have to disagree with them.

 

Sorry that you got upset.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

 

Thank you for the reply. Now that I've had a chance to get over myself, I'm sure there are dynamics I just don't understand. However, I don't think I want to. My understanding is that there are a very few common sense "understood" rules for the sole purpose of protecting the legacy of the hobby. Where are these people getting the rest of the rules they're applying? Who the hell cares if someone logs the "same but different" cache twice. Where's the courthouse? I thought we were having fun here.

 

Okay, seriously off my rant--I AM having a fantastic time and am undeterred. Perhaps if I check in to the forums I will just be a spectator. Perhaps I will be unable to resist adding my voice. GC forums are actually the first I've ever participated in rather than just lurking. Anyway, it sounds like you are having fun in what I still think is the true spirit of Geocaching. Have a great time! I see myself doing the same someday. Would love that chili recipe! :anibad:

 

Hang around a lurk awhile. Pretty soon you'll get an idea of the various dynamics and personalities. It's kinda like a great big extended family--there's grouchy old Uncle Ed, lovey-dovey Aunt Trudie, and goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. :laughing: Overall, though, people are happy to answer sincere questions. It's just a big group of opinionated people. VERY opinionated--and VERY willing to voice that opinion, even if they are just agreeing with the previous 10 posters. It might appear to be "ganging up", but it's really not. Just everybody throwing in their 2 cents.

 

As far as there being a very few common sense "understood" rules--well, yes, but people are constantly pushing the envelope of common sense. The reviewers have to apply these common sense rules to all these various situations. This thread--at least the beginning of it--is a good example of that. You might say "who cares if someone logs the same but different cache twice?" while I say "why not just un-archive the original listing?" Neither option may be technically "wrong", but people certainly have their opinions on which one is more right!

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

Link to comment

 

Thank you for the reply. Now that I've had a chance to get over myself, I'm sure there are dynamics I just don't understand. However, I don't think I want to. My understanding is that there are a very few common sense "understood" rules for the sole purpose of protecting the legacy of the hobby. Where are these people getting the rest of the rules they're applying? Who the hell cares if someone logs the "same but different" cache twice. Where's the courthouse? I thought we were having fun here.

 

Okay, seriously off my rant--I AM having a fantastic time and am undeterred. Perhaps if I check in to the forums I will just be a spectator. Perhaps I will be unable to resist adding my voice. GC forums are actually the first I've ever participated in rather than just lurking. Anyway, it sounds like you are having fun in what I still think is the true spirit of Geocaching. Have a great time! I see myself doing the same someday. Would love that chili recipe! :anibad:

 

Hang around a lurk awhile. Pretty soon you'll get an idea of the various dynamics and personalities. It's kinda like a great big extended family--there's grouchy old Uncle Ed, lovey-dovey Aunt Trudie, and goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. :laughing: Overall, though, people are happy to answer sincere questions. It's just a big group of opinionated people. VERY opinionated--and VERY willing to voice that opinion, even if they are just agreeing with the previous 10 posters. It might appear to be "ganging up", but it's really not. Just everybody throwing in their 2 cents.

 

As far as there being a very few common sense "understood" rules--well, yes, but people are constantly pushing the envelope of common sense. The reviewers have to apply these common sense rules to all these various situations. This thread--at least the beginning of it--is a good example of that. You might say "who cares if someone logs the same but different cache twice?" while I say "why not just un-archive the original listing?" Neither option may be technically "wrong", but people certainly have their opinions on which one is more right!

 

Okay--supposed to be gone, but can't resist. But shouldn't you let them just do what they choose to do if it doesn't interfere with public safety or the law? I guess I'm tantrum-throwing 2 year old Lulu. If I keep screaming and throw myself down and flail all of my limbs and turn red in the face and hold my breath will people give in to me? Probably not. Will they pay attention and ask themselves "What did I do wrong?" or, " am I being reasonable to hold my ground?"-- maybe. Will they still love and accept me as family? I sure hope so.

Link to comment

Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this.

 

I participate in the getting started forum on a regular basis, and so do about 80% of the people here. :anibad:

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

There might be two issues 1. How you think the reviewer handled it and 2. Should the cache be allowed to be published. I'm not saying you can't discuss it but the only real solution for both is that cache owner use the appeal process.

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. *snip*

 

Not sure why I'm answering, but...

I don't see anything in the listing guidelines that say a CO can't archive a cache, and then list the exact same cache as a new GC #. But I also don't see anything that says a reviewer can't un-archive the original listing instead. This isn't about a reviewer choosing to list a cache or not, but rather HOW they choose to list it--as a new one, or as the same one. The OP said that his friend filed an appeal. I'm interested in what the result will be! And that, really, is what it comes down to. But the OP brought his issue to the forums to gather opinions. That's what he got--opinions. Mostly unfavorable--but opinions are all that they are. Ultimately The Frog will decide.

Link to comment

Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this.

 

I participate in the getting started forum on a regular basis, and so do about 80% of the people here. :anibad:

 

Yes, I have seen you there. I don't mean to be all-or-nothing. I dislike when others are.

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

While there is certainly more that we have not heard on this subject, I'm agreeing wth Mindy. There is no rule against 'churning'. It may not be the best idea, but there is no rule against it. Not even a suggestion in the guidelines. Myself, I have found two caches the log book of which already had my signature. One was the bonus on six mystery cache sseries. CO was having problems maintaining the other five mystery caches, so he archived them, and republished the bonus as a stand-alone mystery cache. The other had been archived for two years, and brought back to life as a new cache.

From what I'm reading (again, not the whle story), the two caches in question had been under the weather for a while (meaning the CO should have maintained them or archived them a while back). When he finally did his maintenance run, he decide to archive the old, out-of-sorts caches, and replace them (presumably with new ones.) This actually seems to be encouraged on the site. (There are even threads encouraging people to churn their caches!) I frequently see it said: "The old cache is dead. Archive it and hide a new one." I do not know if the reviewer's recommendation is a suggestion, or a ruling. Will he purblish the CO's two new caches? Or refuse to do so. I see no violation of any geocaching guideline in what the CO did. (Though it is probably not something I would do.) If the reviewer has issued an edict, then it should be mentioned in the guidelines. "Churning of caches may not be permitted."

Link to comment

Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this.

 

I participate in the getting started forum on a regular basis, and so do about 80% of the people here. :anibad:

 

Yes, I have seen you there. I don't mean to be all-or-nothing. I dislike when others are.

 

No worries :laughing:

Link to comment

While there is certainly more that we have not heard on this subject, I'm agreeing wth Mindy. There is no rule against 'churning'. It may not be the best idea, but there is no rule against it. Not even a suggestion in the guidelines. Myself, I have found two caches the log book of which already had my signature. One was the bonus on six mystery cache sseries. CO was having problems maintaining the other five mystery caches, so he archived them, and republished the bonus as a stand-alone mystery cache. The other had been archived for two years, and brought back to life as a new cache.

From what I'm reading (again, not the whle story), the two caches in question had been under the weather for a while (meaning the CO should have maintained them or archived them a while back). When he finally did his maintenance run, he decide to archive the old, out-of-sorts caches, and replace them (presumably with new ones.) This actually seems to be encouraged on the site. (There are even threads encouraging people to churn their caches!) I frequently see it said: "The old cache is dead. Archive it and hide a new one." I do not know if the reviewer's recommendation is a suggestion, or a ruling. Will he purblish the CO's two new caches? Or refuse to do so. I see no violation of any geocaching guideline in what the CO did. (Though it is probably not something I would do.) If the reviewer has issued an edict, then it should be mentioned in the guidelines. "Churning of caches may not be permitted."

 

Come'on. Do you really consider - 'Ya know there really isn't anything new about this cache expect for maintaining the container.' - unreasonable? So much so that it needs a rule?

 

Edit: you know what? It probably does need a rule. (grumble don't iron your shirt while you're wearing it either)

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Hang around a lurk awhile. Pretty soon you'll get an idea of the various dynamics and personalities. It's kinda like a great big extended family--there's grouchy old Uncle Ed, lovey-dovey Aunt Trudie, and goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. :laughing:

Hi, there. I'm goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. Pleased to meet you, MindyRN6. :anibad:

Link to comment

SNIP

 

Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a buzzkill or being negative. People here gave their honest opinions and tried to help as best they could with no real information and only one side of the story. No one here is being self-righteous and arrogant. That is YOUR PERCEPTION for whatever reason.

 

I'm sorry, but life is not all fluffy bunnies and rainbows. People will disagree with you once in a while. Sometimes we call people on their BS. That doesn't mean that we are rude. Read around for a while, and you'll see many positive responses from folks, especially to new people in many different threads.

 

That being said... stick around a while, you might find some conversation you might really like. As for that other person's comment about 'real life geocachers.' Well, I am a real life geocacher, and so are a lot of people around here. I come to the forums to learn and to help others, even if that means I have to disagree with them...

Very well stated, nymphnsatyr. You've summed up the situation rather succinctly, I believe. I've been rather impressed with how people on this forum are willing to take their time to respond to questions/comments/concerns in a rather polite fashion, and try to help out where they can. Fact is, we ain't all gonna agree in life, and that's just how it goes.

 

I'm a little confused as to why I read so many posts by people who slam the members who like to hang out here and contribute for disagreeing with each other. That's really close to real life, from what I've seen. As long as we do it in a civil fashion, then great -- makes for some lively, entertaining reading!

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

While there is certainly more that we have not heard on this subject, I'm agreeing wth Mindy. There is no rule against 'churning'. It may not be the best idea, but there is no rule against it. Not even a suggestion in the guidelines. Myself, I have found two caches the log book of which already had my signature. One was the bonus on six mystery cache sseries. CO was having problems maintaining the other five mystery caches, so he archived them, and republished the bonus as a stand-alone mystery cache. The other had been archived for two years, and brought back to life as a new cache.

From what I'm reading (again, not the whle story), the two caches in question had been under the weather for a while (meaning the CO should have maintained them or archived them a while back). When he finally did his maintenance run, he decide to archive the old, out-of-sorts caches, and replace them (presumably with new ones.) This actually seems to be encouraged on the site. (There are even threads encouraging people to churn their caches!) I frequently see it said: "The old cache is dead. Archive it and hide a new one." I do not know if the reviewer's recommendation is a suggestion, or a ruling. Will he purblish the CO's two new caches? Or refuse to do so. I see no violation of any geocaching guideline in what the CO did. (Though it is probably not something I would do.) If the reviewer has issued an edict, then it should be mentioned in the guidelines. "Churning of caches may not be permitted."

 

Thank you. I agree it can be frowned upon in the community--but to make a decision based on something that should be frowned upon is different than making a decision based on accepted rules. Do we need to come up with a GC version of "shunning", like the Amish?

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

There might be two issues 1. How you think the reviewer handled it and 2. Should the cache be allowed to be published. I'm not saying you can't discuss it but the only real solution for both is that cache owner use the appeal process.

 

That's what I've been saying. At least since post #22, as long as we're pointing to post #s. StaticTank really doesn't have a dog in this fight. They aren't his caches. The CO should decide if he wants to appeal or not.

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

 

Haha! Have both--only one needed food restock. I get the no-no thing, but the discussion did not involve a public safety concern or a matter of laws and ordinances. What you describe is a potential public safety concern to the reviewer--CG'ers are part of the public, I'd guess. Maybe if I'd joined the debate club in school, instead of going to all of those keg parties, I'd have it out of my system and I'd be giving you all a break. I just really think that "rules" need further discussion and some formality involved if they're to be enforced.

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

While there is certainly more that we have not heard on this subject, I'm agreeing wth Mindy. There is no rule against 'churning'. It may not be the best idea, but there is no rule against it. Not even a suggestion in the guidelines. Myself, I have found two caches the log book of which already had my signature. One was the bonus on six mystery cache sseries. CO was having problems maintaining the other five mystery caches, so he archived them, and republished the bonus as a stand-alone mystery cache. The other had been archived for two years, and brought back to life as a new cache.

From what I'm reading (again, not the whle story), the two caches in question had been under the weather for a while (meaning the CO should have maintained them or archived them a while back). When he finally did his maintenance run, he decide to archive the old, out-of-sorts caches, and replace them (presumably with new ones.) This actually seems to be encouraged on the site. (There are even threads encouraging people to churn their caches!) I frequently see it said: "The old cache is dead. Archive it and hide a new one." I do not know if the reviewer's recommendation is a suggestion, or a ruling. Will he purblish the CO's two new caches? Or refuse to do so. I see no violation of any geocaching guideline in what the CO did. (Though it is probably not something I would do.) If the reviewer has issued an edict, then it should be mentioned in the guidelines. "Churning of caches may not be permitted."

 

I'm guessing "churn" isn't a big issue most of the time. Most people *want* to keep their caches alive. Most of the discussions I've read about archiving and relisting usually involve some degree of changing the cache placement. Others in the thread have mentioned this happening other places, so maybe there isn't a set protocol for it--yet? :anibad:

 

I will say that I didn't particularly like seeing how he talked about it on his blog. A bit too much like holding up the CO for ridicule for my taste. If he wanted to take it public, why not post comments here? Whether or not "churn" is "right" or allowed, my personal opinion is that I would rather not see it happen.

Link to comment

SNIP

 

Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a buzzkill or being negative. People here gave their honest opinions and tried to help as best they could with no real information and only one side of the story. No one here is being self-righteous and arrogant. That is YOUR PERCEPTION for whatever reason.

 

I'm sorry, but life is not all fluffy bunnies and rainbows. People will disagree with you once in a while. Sometimes we call people on their BS. That doesn't mean that we are rude. Read around for a while, and you'll see many positive responses from folks, especially to new people in many different threads.

 

That being said... stick around a while, you might find some conversation you might really like. As for that other person's comment about 'real life geocachers.' Well, I am a real life geocacher, and so are a lot of people around here. I come to the forums to learn and to help others, even if that means I have to disagree with them...

Very well stated, nymphnsatyr. You've summed up the situation rather succinctly, I believe. I've been rather impressed with how people on this forum are willing to take their time to respond to questions/comments/concerns in a rather polite fashion, and try to help out where they can. Fact is, we ain't all gonna agree in life, and that's just how it goes.

 

I'm a little confused as to why I read so many posts by people who slam the members who like to hang out here and contribute for disagreeing with each other. That's really close to real life, from what I've seen. As long as we do it in a civil fashion, then great -- makes for some lively, entertaining reading!

 

Exactly!! I do try to be civil, really I do. Even when I'm disagreeing with someone, I try my best to be civil and kind... but even then I'm sure that what I say may be misconstrued. But frankly, if it was me asking a question; I'd much rather have someone be honest with me even if they thought it might hurt my feelings. In fact, I consider those people who are willing to be sincere with me to be better friends than those who sugar coat everything and pretend like nothing's wrong.

 

Part of why I've been with my husband so long. I know that man will never lie to me. Coincidentally, it's our 8 year anniversary tomorrow :anibad:

 

Thanks Mountain Man, I enjoy your posts as well.

Link to comment

Hang around a lurk awhile. Pretty soon you'll get an idea of the various dynamics and personalities. It's kinda like a great big extended family--there's grouchy old Uncle Ed, lovey-dovey Aunt Trudie, and goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. :(

Hi, there. I'm goofy cousin George, that everybody just kind of ignores. Pleased to meet you, MindyRN6. :laughing:

 

I was actually thinking of someone else when I wrote that, but if that's the character you want to play then go for it!! :anibad:

Link to comment

I stand by post # 150. Unless they lied to me when I signed up, the rule/guideline this reviewer used does not exist and people "called the OP on their BS" because they knew that when they discovered the "whole story", that they would find that the reviewer followed an imaginary guideline that even as a newbie I can see is not in the spirit of Geocaching, but in the spirit of competition and control that they apparently think should be in some official rulebook for Geocachers. I maintain--the one who dies with the most logged finds does not win. It is the one whose life was enhanced in any way by participating. Who cares who "churns" or whatever other lingo term I haven't learned yet! I will now return to the getting started forums--they know all of this there. As a nothing but friendly suggestion, pay us a visit there and really remember why you got in to this. Alternatively, start a new game that has all of your rules (seriously not being sarcastic), or show me the official rules as they are and I'll concede. The fact that a reviewer has spent countless hours dedicated to this does not mean that they are not applying the "rules as they and other GC gurus like them" think they should be. I think that's the real topic, here. Care to start a topic, anyone? What are the "rules"????

 

There might be two issues 1. How you think the reviewer handled it and 2. Should the cache be allowed to be published. I'm not saying you can't discuss it but the only real solution for both is that cache owner use the appeal process.

 

That's what I've been saying. At least since post #22, as long as we're pointing to post #s. StaticTank really doesn't have a dog in this fight. They aren't his caches. The CO should decide if he wants to appeal or not.

 

Agreed that is the issue of the CO, not the OP, but it does open the door for discussion/debate.

 

The cache I found today was on the property of a beautiful bed and breakfast. The inn owner was obviously not the CO or a Geocacher, but had allowed it on their property. The cache description asked that cachers please check in with the owner to let them know why they were there, and the cache was in a location that had to be maintained by the property owner, who obviously knew where it was. Should this have been reported to a reviewer? I'd have missed a beautiful experience if it had been archived because it didn't meet someone's interpretation of imaginary rules.

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

 

Haha! Have both--only one needed food restock. I get the no-no thing, but the discussion did not involve a public safety concern or a matter of laws and ordinances. What you describe is a potential public safety concern to the reviewer--CG'ers are part of the public, I'd guess. Maybe if I'd joined the debate club in school, instead of going to all of those keg parties, I'd have it out of my system and I'd be giving you all a break. I just really think that "rules" need further discussion and some formality involved if they're to be enforced.

 

Well, actually, neither of the two examples that I gave involve laws and ordinances, and only some would think that the electrical equipment thing is a matter of public safety. For that matter, geocaching itself has never been about public safety. It has always assumed that you are responsible for your own safety and that is something that most of us feel very protective of.

 

As well, experience has shown that leaving flexibility in the guidelines is generally a good thing.

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

 

Haha! Have both--only one needed food restock. I get the no-no thing, but the discussion did not involve a public safety concern or a matter of laws and ordinances. What you describe is a potential public safety concern to the reviewer--CG'ers are part of the public, I'd guess. Maybe if I'd joined the debate club in school, instead of going to all of those keg parties, I'd have it out of my system and I'd be giving you all a break. I just really think that "rules" need further discussion and some formality involved if they're to be enforced.

 

Well, actually, neither of the two examples that I gave involve laws and ordinances, and only some would think that the electrical equipment thing is a matter of public safety. For that matter, geocaching itself has never been about public safety. It has always assumed that you are responsible for your own safety and that is something that most of us feel very protective of.

 

As well, experience has shown that leaving flexibility in the guidelines is generally a good thing.

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

 

Haha! Have both--only one needed food restock. I get the no-no thing, but the discussion did not involve a public safety concern or a matter of laws and ordinances. What you describe is a potential public safety concern to the reviewer--CG'ers are part of the public, I'd guess. Maybe if I'd joined the debate club in school, instead of going to all of those keg parties, I'd have it out of my system and I'd be giving you all a break. I just really think that "rules" need further discussion and some formality involved if they're to be enforced.

 

Well, actually, neither of the two examples that I gave involve laws and ordinances, and only some would think that the electrical equipment thing is a matter of public safety. For that matter, geocaching itself has never been about public safety. It has always assumed that you are responsible for your own safety and that is something that most of us feel very protective of.

 

As well, experience has shown that leaving flexibility in the guidelines is generally a good thing.

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

Actually, there is at least one reviewer that is a dog (not me!) and another that is a doorknob.

 

Glad to have you here, Mindy!

Link to comment

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

 

As far as I know, a person can log as many smilies as they want on any cache IF the CO allows them to. If the CO wants to let his buddies rack up their numbers, he can. Also, the reviewers don't control the terrain or difficulty rating, the CO does.

Link to comment

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

 

As far as I know, a person can log as many smilies as they want on any cache IF the CO allows them to. If the CO wants to let his buddies rack up their numbers, he can. Also, the reviewers don't control the terrain or difficulty rating, the CO does.

 

But I'll still point and laugh at them behind their backs. Oh heck! I've even been known to do it in front of their backs.

Link to comment
I'm walking the dog to the store to get toilet paper and kitten food. If someone doesn't agree with me by the time I get back, I'm going to do what I said in post #158! :anibad:
OK, I will agree with you. But only because you're walking the dog. Shouldn't you be getting dog food, though? Or if it really is kitten food that you need, perhaps kitty litter would be better than toilet paper?

 

As to the reviewer... they are not tied 100% to the guidelines. My local reviewer has chosen to require explicit permission and a contact for caches hidden in cemeteries (or, so I've heard). IowaAdmin will not allow caches on electrical equipment. Neither of those are points in the guidelines, and if you don't like 'em, there is always the review process. But that is what it will take.

 

Even if it isn't written down in the guidelines, archiving a cache and re-creating it so that either you can add to your hides count, or so that others will return to your cache and send you happy Found It notes has long been considered a "no-no".

 

Haha! Have both--only one needed food restock. I get the no-no thing, but the discussion did not involve a public safety concern or a matter of laws and ordinances. What you describe is a potential public safety concern to the reviewer--CG'ers are part of the public, I'd guess. Maybe if I'd joined the debate club in school, instead of going to all of those keg parties, I'd have it out of my system and I'd be giving you all a break. I just really think that "rules" need further discussion and some formality involved if they're to be enforced.

 

Well, actually, neither of the two examples that I gave involve laws and ordinances, and only some would think that the electrical equipment thing is a matter of public safety. For that matter, geocaching itself has never been about public safety. It has always assumed that you are responsible for your own safety and that is something that most of us feel very protective of.

 

As well, experience has shown that leaving flexibility in the guidelines is generally a good thing.

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

Actually, there is at least one reviewer that is a dog (not me!) and another that is a doorknob.

 

Glad to have you here, Mindy!

 

Inside joke on the dog and doorknob? Or am I too slow? Thanks for the welcome. Are you my goofy uncle?

Link to comment

Actually, there is at least one reviewer that is a dog (not me!) and another that is a doorknob.

 

Glad to have you here, Mindy!

 

Inside joke on the dog and doorknob? Or am I too slow? Thanks for the welcome. Are you my goofy uncle?

 

Nope, really there is a dog and a doorknob for reveiwers. Mine seems to be some trees, or maybe the sky? No, idea really.

Link to comment

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

 

As far as I know, a person can log as many smilies as they want on any cache IF the CO allows them to. If the CO wants to let his buddies rack up their numbers, he can. Also, the reviewers don't control the terrain or difficulty rating, the CO does.

 

But I'll still point and laugh at them behind their backs. Oh heck! I've even been known to do it in front of their backs.

 

Yes, we need a "shun" button for these folk, not a "banish to Siberia and disallow their finds and caches" That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. Hell, why couldn't I just blast through them online and log them as finds to make my #'s look good? There's no requirement that your log proves in its description that you were really there. So reviewers enforcing that "churning" doesn't happen on their watch makes no sense to me.

 

I have logged every cache (or will, when I shut up here) I've set out for. I think that even the experience of a DNF is valuable to others--I know it is to me! Do I care if others follow my code of ethics? No. I'm the one who has to answer to my conscience.

 

Do you know how some other sites' forums allow you to give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to posts? I wish (or DO I.......) we could do that here.

 

Ironic, this is what was going to get me OFF of the computer! Seriously, I was out for hours earlier and at least I'm not still playing Farmville!

Link to comment

 

Yes, we need a "shun" button for these folk, not a "banish to Siberia and disallow their finds and caches" That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. Hell, why couldn't I just blast through them online and log them as finds to make my #'s look good? There's no requirement that your log proves in its description that you were really there. So reviewers enforcing that "churning" doesn't happen on their watch makes no sense to me.

 

I have logged every cache (or will, when I shut up here) I've set out for. I think that even the experience of a DNF is valuable to others--I know it is to me! Do I care if others follow my code of ethics? No. I'm the one who has to answer to my conscience.

 

Do you know how some other sites' forums allow you to give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to posts? I wish (or DO I.......) we could do that here.

 

Ironic, this is what was going to get me OFF of the computer! Seriously, I was out for hours earlier and at least I'm not still playing Farmville!

 

Re: blast through them online-- oooh, that's a whole 'nother thread! :anibad: Seriously, there's another recent thread around here about what constitutes a find, when it's okay to get a smilie. And actually, a CO CAN delete your "find" log if your signature isn't in the physical log book. (And there's a whole 'nother thread about whether a sticker or stamp constitutes a signature. I'm tellin' ya, if you don't like reading posts that split hairs and nit-pick, run away--run away now!! :laughing: )

 

And I don't see anybody being banished to Siberia, or having their finds and caches disallowed. The reviewer in question isn't disallowing the cache, just disallowing it being listed as a NEW cache. He seemed perfectly willing to resurrect the archived listing. A subtle difference, but a significant one, I think. Guess it remains to be seen what the head honchos think.

Link to comment

 

Re: blast through them online-- oooh, that's a whole 'nother thread! :anibad: Seriously, there's another recent thread around here about what constitutes a find, when it's okay to get a smilie. And actually, a CO CAN delete your "find" log if your signature isn't in the physical log book. (And there's a whole 'nother thread about whether a sticker or stamp constitutes a signature. I'm tellin' ya, if you don't like reading posts that split hairs and nit-pick, run away--run away now!! :laughing: )

 

And I don't see anybody being banished to Siberia, or having their finds and caches disallowed. The reviewer in question isn't disallowing the cache, just disallowing it being listed as a NEW cache. He seemed perfectly willing to resurrect the archived listing. A subtle difference, but a significant one, I think. Guess it remains to be seen what the head honchos think.

Just how is the caching in Siberia? :(

Link to comment

 

I agree on the personal responsibility aspect. And the flexibility. As far as the electrical equipment being a public safety issue, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it at least makes more sense to me than (Heaven forbid) making gosh darn sure someone doesn't create a way to log extra finds and beat me in a game that isn't a contest to begin with. I think that the reviewer you spoke of would've been more prudent to rate the terrain a 3 instead of forbidding. I also am just realizing and musing to myself that reviewers don't have qualifications they have to meet (thankfully!) and are human, too.

 

Apparently, Geocaching is going to meet 2 needs for me: the one I signed up for and my crave to debate.

 

As far as I know, a person can log as many smilies as they want on any cache IF the CO allows them to. If the CO wants to let his buddies rack up their numbers, he can. Also, the reviewers don't control the terrain or difficulty rating, the CO does.

 

But I'll still point and laugh at them behind their backs. Oh heck! I've even been known to do it in front of their backs.

 

Yes, we need a "shun" button for these folk, not a "banish to Siberia and disallow their finds and caches" That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. Hell, why couldn't I just blast through them online and log them as finds to make my #'s look good? There's no requirement that your log proves in its description that you were really there. So reviewers enforcing that "churning" doesn't happen on their watch makes no sense to me.

 

I have logged every cache (or will, when I shut up here) I've set out for. I think that even the experience of a DNF is valuable to others--I know it is to me! Do I care if others follow my code of ethics? No. I'm the one who has to answer to my conscience.

 

Do you know how some other sites' forums allow you to give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to posts? I wish (or DO I.......) we could do that here.

 

Ironic, this is what was going to get me OFF of the computer! Seriously, I was out for hours earlier and at least I'm not still playing Farmville!

ThumbsUp-thumb.png
Link to comment
i may be a troll but that is the dumbest op i have seen. we gotta do a little better next time.
New here, huh? :anibad:

 

You have 4 posts, and joined a week ago. Static Tank joined 4 years ago. Please don't go calling posts or posters dumb until you have a little more experience. That was rude of you.

Being rude is a character flaw. It absolutely has nothing to do with caching experience or fourum posts.

Link to comment
i may be a troll but that is the dumbest op i have seen. we gotta do a little better next time.
New here, huh? :anibad:

 

You have 4 posts, and joined a week ago. Static Tank joined 4 years ago. Please don't go calling posts or posters dumb until you have a little more experience. That was rude of you.

Being rude is a character flaw. It absolutely has nothing to do with caching experience or fourum posts.

 

At the risk of starting THAT whole arguement again please, don't feed the troll.

Link to comment

 

Yes, we need a "shun" button for these folk, not a "banish to Siberia and disallow their finds and caches" That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. Hell, why couldn't I just blast through them online and log them as finds to make my #'s look good? There's no requirement that your log proves in its description that you were really there. So reviewers enforcing that "churning" doesn't happen on their watch makes no sense to me.

 

I have logged every cache (or will, when I shut up here) I've set out for. I think that even the experience of a DNF is valuable to others--I know it is to me! Do I care if others follow my code of ethics? No. I'm the one who has to answer to my conscience.

 

Do you know how some other sites' forums allow you to give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to posts? I wish (or DO I.......) we could do that here.

 

Ironic, this is what was going to get me OFF of the computer! Seriously, I was out for hours earlier and at least I'm not still playing Farmville!

 

Re: blast through them online-- oooh, that's a whole 'nother thread! :anibad: Seriously, there's another recent thread around here about what constitutes a find, when it's okay to get a smilie. And actually, a CO CAN delete your "find" log if your signature isn't in the physical log book. (And there's a whole 'nother thread about whether a sticker or stamp constitutes a signature. I'm tellin' ya, if you don't like reading posts that split hairs and nit-pick, run away--run away now!! :laughing: )

 

And I don't see anybody being banished to Siberia, or having their finds and caches disallowed. The reviewer in question isn't disallowing the cache, just disallowing it being listed as a NEW cache. He seemed perfectly willing to resurrect the archived listing. A subtle difference, but a significant one, I think. Guess it remains to be seen what the head honchos think.

 

Guess I'll have to get used to more splitting hairs than I have on my head if I want to hang out here. Doesn't mean I won't protest against the TYRANNY!!!! :(

Link to comment
Doesn't mean I won't protest against the TYRANNY!!!! :(

Down with the bloody Tyrants! :anibad::(:laughing:

Hi Mindy! Grumpy Uncle here. In situations like these, I like to refer to this sentence in the Guidelines:

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

Now, this is not an open invitation for a Reviewer to toss the Guidelines and do whatever they want, but it does give them certain official authority to act a tad bit outside the Guidelines, if they feel it's needed. If the cache owner in question, (who still hasn't bothered to opine in this thread), appeals to Groundspeak, I imagine at some point TPTB will ask him for his side of the story. Once they get both sides, Groundspeak will render a decision.

Link to comment

Ummm....

 

I'm not sure who I want to be. The cousin with the drug problem? Okay, I'll take that one since nobody else will. I'm not going to rehab, you can't make me.

 

There are only one or two people on this board I wouldn't invite on a caching run, yet I've disagreed, sometimes emphatically, with quite a few. It's just real life in written form. You can't get this many people in the same room, start any variety of discussions, and not expect disagreements.

 

That being said, I still have a couple big issues with the OP and his story. It's not his business to be in contact with GS. If you read his posts, he says that HE contacted GS and they were helping him. It's not even his cache. Mind your own.

 

Also, if you're going to present something like this, you need to be willing to answer the questions that are asked of you if you want valid opinions. I sure won't consider the other side of an argument/opinion if my questions aren't answered. It's only fair right?

 

Nice to see you here in the forums, stick around for a while. We're really not that bad.

Link to comment
Doesn't mean I won't protest against the TYRANNY!!!! :(

Down with the bloody Tyrants! :anibad::(:laughing:

Hi Mindy! Grumpy Uncle here. In situations like these, I like to refer to this sentence in the Guidelines:

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

Now, this is not an open invitation for a Reviewer to toss the Guidelines and do whatever they want, but it does give them certain official authority to act a tad bit outside the Guidelines, if they feel it's needed. If the cache owner in question, (who still hasn't bothered to opine in this thread), appeals to Groundspeak, I imagine at some point TPTB will ask him for his side of the story. Once they get both sides, Groundspeak will render a decision.

My guess it that the section of the guideline that will be used to justify IowaReviewer's action will be the saturation guideline

The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist .
The argument will be that archiving a cache and replacing it with a nearly identical cache in the same location isn't seeking out new places for your hide. If you recycle the same old places over and over again, you essential have found a loophole in the saturation guideline. At least I predict that Groundspeak will view it that way.

 

The saturation guideline is one of the few that give the rationale so explicitly. And Jeremy has reiterated this rationale in a recent discussion on the feedback site. If we accept the rationale, then even without an explicit guideline forbidding it, archiving a cache an replacing it with essentially the same hide could be seen as acting against the rationale.

 

Now Jeremy's belief that the intent of geocaching is to bring people to new places, not to bring them to same place over and over, can be debated. I think there are clearly some geocachers who enjoy going back to the same place to find a new geocache. It seems reasonable to me to allow this. But based on the rationale given for the saturation guidelines it may be that TPTB have spoken already.

 

The fact is we pretty much live under tyranny here. But it is a benevolent tyrant. Changes are made to the guidelines only when there is a strong rationale for doing so. Sometimes there are small changes needed to clarify the meaning of the guidelines and to give direction to the reviewers so they don't stray too far from the way TPTB want the guidelines to be applied. Reviewer input and geocacher input are actually valued when changes are made. Only when you have been around awhile will you see how decisions get made. I've witness changes on virtual caches, additional logging requirements, power trails, and several other issues. This situation may result in another change to make it clear that TPTB don't approved of recycling a cache just so someone can go log it again. I'll probably protest because I don't agree completely with the rationale, but it will hardly be the end of geocaching if this becomes one more thing you can no longer do.

Link to comment

Ummm....

 

I'm not sure who I want to be. The cousin with the drug problem? Okay, I'll take that one since nobody else will. I'm not going to rehab, you can't make me.

 

 

Rehab is for quitters, or so they say. I'm not sure who I would be. The annoying nerdy sister mayhaps?

Link to comment

Ummm....

 

I'm not sure who I want to be. The cousin with the drug problem? Okay, I'll take that one since nobody else will. I'm not going to rehab, you can't make me.

 

 

Rehab is for quitters, or so they say. I'm not sure who I would be. The annoying nerdy sister mayhaps?

 

Nerdy? yah... but annoying? no...

Link to comment

 

While there is certainly more that we have not heard on this subject, I'm agreeing wth Mindy. There is no rule against 'churning'. It may not be the best idea, but there is no rule against it. Not even a suggestion in the guidelines.

 

Up until 2006 there was no guideline which specifically mentioned power trails. I suspect that about that time Groundspeak felt that they were and issue so added some text to the cache saturation guideline which specifically prohibited them. In what I believe was one of the worst decisions that Groundspeak has ever made they eliminated that language in 2009 and now power trails are becoming more common.

 

To me, the idea of placing a cache with the intent that it's going to be temporary (most of the locals have found it) and republishing it as a new listing so those same locals can add to their find count (what other purpose does it serve?) is absurd.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...