Really difficult cache...

9.3k · October 16, 2010

Given the preponderance of evidence, it was understandable that the locals got upset.

I can't agree with this. Let's look at the "evidence":

1 ) A cacher hid a cache.

2 ) The coords were accurate.

3 ) The D/T rating fell within the subjectivity curve.

4 ) The local entitlement junkies threw a collective tantrum.

Even if the CO had rated it a 1/1, as noobs occasionally do, that is no reason for the locals to get upset.

The failed to find a cache that was beyond their experience level.

It happens to me on a regular basis.

My assumption, when faced with a cache I can't find, is that the CO is better at hiding than I am at finding.

Their egos would not let them make that assumption.

Their behavior, especially that of the so called cacher who placed the throw down, was absolutely inexcusable.

Claiming that tantrum throwing is "understandable" simply enables those who resort to such childish antics.

7.5k · October 16, 2010

I think, however, the most important thing to remember is that geocaching is supposed to be both fun and in good faith. A "great hider" in my opinion is not someone who puts out hard to find caches; rather, a "great hider" is someone who has a positive, can-do attitude and puts out caches time and time again that the community enjoys seeking. So, to put out a cache that nobody found and then brag about how they were "king" of the local cachers totally misses the point about what this sport is all about.

In this case, a simple "it's there, keep looking, you're in the right spot!" note would have gone a long way here. Words of encouragement are the appropriate response to a frustrated seeker. The reviewer's comments suggest that the CO wasn't really working with the reviewer, either. A simple PM to the reviewer to say "it's a nano under one of the bricks in the picture that one of the seekers posted" would have ALSO gone a long way to calm this all down.

Yes, you've clearly stated what the overall problem was and how it could have gone more smoothly. So well said. Thank you.

6.7k · October 17, 2010

Both sides of this argument are ridiculous. Can't find a cache and looking has stopped being fun? Ignore it and move on. And taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a needle in the haystack nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

19k · October 17, 2010

What I can't figure out is why people couldn't just put this on their ignore list and move on?

Which? the cache, or the thread? :grin:

9.3k · October 17, 2010

Taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

While the clever part might be subject to debate, (I thought it was pretty darn clever), the vandalism claim is patently false. Vandalism is a strict legal definition describing a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, to commit vandalism, one must willfully and maliciously injure or damage any real or personal property belonging to another. If I can pick up a loose brick, and replace it unharmed, that is not vandalism. If I pick up a loose brick and accidentally damage it, such as chipping an edge, that also is not vandalism. Let's not pretend that this cache is in violation of the law simply so we can rant against it.

Bad judgement? Maybe.

Vandalism? No.

19k · October 17, 2010

Taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

While the clever part might be subject to debate, (I thought it was pretty darn clever), the vandalism claim is patently false. Vandalism is a strict legal definition describing a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, to commit vandalism, one must willfully and maliciously injure or damage any real or personal property belonging to another. If I can pick up a loose brick, and replace it unharmed, that is not vandalism. If I pick up a loose brick and accidentally damage it, such as chipping an edge, that also is not vandalism. Let's not pretend that this cache is in violation of the law simply so we can rant against it.

Bad judgement? Maybe.

Vandalism? No.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

October 17, 2010

It always amazes me what people will say to each other over the internet.

Hopefully the CO had permission for this hide.

This one would have been on the ignore list.

October 17, 2010

I vote Clan Riffster's last 3 posts as the most "stand back and look at this in the cool light of day" thinking.

Well said Clan. For me you hit several nails right on the head.

(Not that anyone probably cares what I think )

10.2k · October 17, 2010

What I can't figure out is why people couldn't just put this on their ignore list and move on?

It took until post #245 by Gof, but we finally have a winner!! What a brilliant one sentence observation. Why can't they put it on the ignore list? Because almost no one uses theirs, that's why. Nope, much better to be smiley obsessed and kook out on the internet over anything that manages to get listed on this website. The cache IL to LI is in an alley behind a suburban strip plaza, and would have been ignored by myself minutes after publication, after taking about 15 seconds to view the Google Sat. View.

I just remembered, the same exact situation happened with a cache placed earlier this year in New Stantion (sic) Pennsylvania. Yep, it's all there, smiley obsessed people kooking out over the cache's existance, offers by experienced cachers to "meet me there, and show me where the cache is", etc... In case anyone is interested, that would be Bair Witch Project

Oh, and I forgot. Dedicated Sock Puppets created specifically for posting notes to that cache page. Gotta have that element in there too.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

10.2k · October 17, 2010

Taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

While the clever part might be subject to debate, (I thought it was pretty darn clever), the vandalism claim is patently false. Vandalism is a strict legal definition describing a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, to commit vandalism, one must willfully and maliciously injure or damage any real or personal property belonging to another. If I can pick up a loose brick, and replace it unharmed, that is not vandalism. If I pick up a loose brick and accidentally damage it, such as chipping an edge, that also is not vandalism. Let's not pretend that this cache is in violation of the law simply so we can rant against it.

Bad judgement? Maybe.

Vandalism? No.

Well I know (and I'm sure many other's do) that Clan Riffster is a law enforcement officer down in Florida. If he says "not vandalism", I'd tend to go with that. I will go with bad judgement for sure though. Private property; an alley behind a strip plaza; brick wall. Is anyone going up to this retaining wall and taking bricks out of it if there isn't a cache there? This aspect of our hobby disturbs me. From the creeping around in an area on private property where the public wouldn't normally go, to even touching the wall itself.

I mean sure, a few neighborhood kids might ride their bikes back there, and lossen a couple of bricks. But adults driving up in cars? Sit back and look at this situation as a non-geocacher. Kind of whacked, ain't it?

6.7k · October 17, 2010

Those blocks are put together with an adhesive. But I will concede that the block may have been loose prior to cache placement. Still, taking apart someones wall to create a needle in the haystack type hide is indeed "Kind of whacked".

2.2k · October 17, 2010

Edit: Someone else explained what I put here already. Sorry... my browser is doing weird things with the forum this morning.

Edited October 17, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

October 17, 2010

I find it amusing that after all that drama the CO still only has one find. I know that anytime I go some place new I am itching to find at least one cache.

Who needs TV when you have excitement like this?!

1k · October 17, 2010

NOBODY said or implied that "Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?!"[/b]

Actaully, I think quite a few of us jumped to that comclusion and implied, if nt outright stated it. And we were wrong!

From looking at the picture, we now know the terrain rating was accurate, as ground zero was, technically speaking, handicapped accessible. At that point, the only relevant debate would revolve around the difficulty rating, which is entirely subjective.

Really? You think a person in a wheelchair could lift a 25lb concrete capstone on a 6-8 foot wall? That would be impressive.

... behavior, especially that of the so called cacher who placed the throw down, was absolutely inexcusable.

I agree fully on that one. The throwdown cache was very bad.

Taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

While the clever part might be subject to debate, (I thought it was pretty darn clever), the vandalism claim is patently false. Vandalism is a strict legal definition describing a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, to commit vandalism, one must willfully and maliciously injure or damage any real or personal property belonging to another. If I can pick up a loose brick, and replace it unharmed, that is not vandalism. If I pick up a loose brick and accidentally damage it, such as chipping an edge, that also is not vandalism. Let's not pretend that this cache is in violation of the law simply so we can rant against it.

Bad judgement? Maybe.

Vandalism? No.

I think that the CO willfully lifted the capstone and was fully aware that by placing it there he/she was inviting others to do so. For the CO to think that no damage would occur to the wall in the future due directly to his actions is not realistic.

If I was the property owner, I would consider it vandalism, and I bet the property owner has more pull with the local authorities than the CO.

If the shop owner called about someone tampering with the wall, and the police found a bunch of grown adults climbing all over the wall, or even some kids doing it, what would they do? I have seen skateboarders do this much damage "riding the rails" or whatever they call it and it is considered vandalism (albeit petty).

19k · October 17, 2010

I find it amusing that after all that drama the CO still only has one find. I know that anytime I go some place new I am itching to find at least one cache.

Correction... the CO's *account* only has one find. Not necessarily the same thing.

1k · October 17, 2010

I find it amusing that after all that drama the CO still only has one find. I know that anytime I go some place new I am itching to find at least one cache.

Correction... the CO's *account* only has one find. Not necessarily the same thing.

Yeah, we never did figure out if it was a sock puppet or not.

It seems a devilishly evil hide for a first timer. Hat's off to him/her for that.

October 18, 2010

I've read this entire thread, and I think that on a few levels, there are lots of you who are silly for continuing to post for as long as you have.

Don't know if it'll be seen or not, but I'll ask a mod to close this thread. It has nowhere else to go.

So now you're deciding to police the thread about policing a cache? :angry:

Threads have a life of their own. If they get nasty or out of line, the moderators will do their job and close them down. Otherwise, as long as someone is interested enough in the subject to keep posting, why do you feel a need to try to get the thread closed?

October 18, 2010

I don't particularly like it when the Geocaching community is getting punk'ed.

I'm sorry that two dozen cacher's wasted their time looking for this fiction.

Would a cacher that is local to that area please contact the landowner and see if permission was granted to place the cache on their property? You may want to mention your concern, if you have one, about people dismantling parts of the wall to find the cache. If the answer comes back "No permission was granted" then please contact the local reviewer and notify them that the cache was placed without permission and that it should be archived.

And another busybody feels the need to take on the task of policing this hobby.

Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?! Good grief -- get over yourselves. What exactly does this cache have to do with you? Why are you presuming to speak for the entire sport of geocaching?

Busybody? Really? That's harsh, son. They're entitled to their opinion in a public forum. If we don't police this hobby ourselves who will do it? You? The Federal Government??? the Federation?

NOBODY said or implied that "Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?!"

The cache doesn't have to "exactly have to do with" a poster to this thread for him to be concerned or voice an opinion.

NOBODY presumed "to speak for the entire sport of geocaching,"

Where on earth to you get all that drivel? Get over yourself, yourself.

Son?! Get over yourself, eh?

You're not worth responding more to.

October 18, 2010

Given the preponderance of evidence, it was understandable that the locals got upset.

I can't agree with this. Let's look at the "evidence":

1 ) A cacher hid a cache.

2 ) The coords were accurate.

3 ) The D/T rating fell within the subjectivity curve.

4 ) The local entitlement junkies threw a collective tantrum.

Even if the CO had rated it a 1/1, as noobs occasionally do, that is no reason for the locals to get upset.

The failed to find a cache that was beyond their experience level.

It happens to me on a regular basis.

My assumption, when faced with a cache I can't find, is that the CO is better at hiding than I am at finding.

Their egos would not let them make that assumption.

Their behavior, especially that of the so called cacher who placed the throw down, was absolutely inexcusable.

Claiming that tantrum throwing is "understandable" simply enables those who resort to such childish antics.

Very well stated, CF. Better than I could have put it. :angry:

October 18, 2010

You're not worth responding more to.

Ah, but you just did, didn't you? So, it's OK for you to tell someone to get over themselves, but when someone says it to you it , it's a bad thing??

No answer to the inaccuracies I pointed out, eh? :angry:

Edited October 18, 2010 by Trader Rick & Rosie

October 18, 2010

You're not worth responding more to.

Ah, but you just did, didn't you? No answer to the inaccuracies I pointed out, eh?

Reading comprehension, son. Read carefully...

October 18, 2010

You're not worth responding more to.

Ah, but you just did, didn't you? No answer to the inaccuracies I pointed out, eh?

Reading comprehension, son. Read carefully...

That doesn't even make sense. Think before you post. I'm just trying to point out to you that Your ideas will be met with a more likelihood of being considered if you are not so hostile, and lose the wild and crazy accustions.

3.6k · October 18, 2010

This is clearly a hot topic, but please keep things hospitable and cordial, okay? Thanks everyone.

October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s). I can't believe all the mud slinging over this. And the instigator is probably sitting back laughing at all of you fighting over it. I live on LI, but about an hour or so from the archived cache and would not have even heard about it if y'all hadn't made such a big to do over it.

IMHO this thread should be locked. And some of you should go cache or something. Geez

October 18, 2010

That doesn't even make sense. Think before you post.

Could you share with me what it is that makes you feel a need to offer such advice?

I'm just trying to point out to you that Your ideas will be met with a more likelihood of being considered if you are not so hostile, and lose the wild and crazy accustions.

While I agree that being hostile and making "wild and crazy accustions" isn't a good idea, I don't see that as what I was doing. My post (that you quoted) was made in response to another poster who made what I considered a rather inappropriate and boorish attack on the CO in question. Your post, that I didn't see a point in responding to, was in fact hostile, insulting, and didn't serve a useful purpose as it relates to this thread.

Your advice to not be hostile and attacking was good -- and perhaps something you should consider, too.

Edited to add: Skippermark, my apologies if I've been less than cordial in my responses. Sometimes I forget to edit my thoughts before I hit submit...

Edited October 18, 2010 by mountainman38

October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s). I can't believe all the mud slinging over this. And the instigator is probably sitting back laughing at all of you fighting over it. I live on LI, but about an hour or so from the archived cache and would not have even heard about it if y'all hadn't made such a big to do over it.

IMHO this thread should be locked. And some of you should go cache or something. Geez

What do you mean -- "done this sort of thing numerous times"? Done what - made difficult hides? :angry:

It seems like this cacher is guilty of nothing more than making a difficult hide that couldn't be found by the locals. While there has been a lot of mud slinging, it's mostly been by people who should have kept their noses out of the situation, it seems.

I'm curious as to how you know what that this cacher has done "Obviously under different user ID(s)". How can you know this for sure? Even if there were blatant wrong doing on the part of "Just-do-something" with the cache in question, your accusation sounds a lot like libel.

I have to ask again - what purpose would locking this thread serve? No one HAS to read it, ya know.

Edited October 18, 2010 by mountainman38

19k · October 18, 2010

I find it amusing that after all that drama the CO still only has one find. I know that anytime I go some place new I am itching to find at least one cache.

Correction... the CO's *account* only has one find. Not necessarily the same thing.

Yeah, we never did figure out if it was a sock puppet or not.

It seems a devilishly evil hide for a first timer. Hat's off to him/her for that.

May not even be a sock puppet. It is possible that the cache owner was part of a team (probably in Illinois) that split up. This guy wanted his own account now and hasn't moved the group finds over. It could be that he decided to not log his finds online, too.

October 18, 2010

Taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.

While the clever part might be subject to debate, (I thought it was pretty darn clever), the vandalism claim is patently false. Vandalism is a strict legal definition describing a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, to commit vandalism, one must willfully and maliciously injure or damage any real or personal property belonging to another. If I can pick up a loose brick, and replace it unharmed, that is not vandalism. If I pick up a loose brick and accidentally damage it, such as chipping an edge, that also is not vandalism. Let's not pretend that this cache is in violation of the law simply so we can rant against it.

Bad judgement? Maybe.

Vandalism? No.

The problem is that finding the cache usually involves more than picking up one brick. Given the uncertainty in GPS locations, if you didn't know which brick it was, you'd have to remove and replace a dozen bricks. While you make a good point that removing one brick and replacing it without damage might not be vandalism, I think that anyone removing a dozen bricks from a wall, even if they try to replace them carefuly (unlikely to do a good job of that), is going to spend a night in jail. If I was on the jury, I'd agree that it was vandalism. And, let's face it, it's the jury that determines what's vandalism.

I don't see much difference between taking apart a wall and digging a hole. We prohibit holes, not because digging one hole is so bad, but if you don't know where the cache is, you'll probably dig lots of holes. That's where the problem lies.

Edited October 18, 2010 by PokerLuck

4.2k · October 18, 2010

Yeah, we never did figure out if it was a sock puppet or not.

It seems a devilishly evil hide for a first timer. Hat's off to him/her for that.

I would probably not give "hats off" to a cache that required you to remove part of a wall on private property. It's hard to believe there was adequate permission for that one. It's not that hard to place a nano to make a difficult cache. It's harder to read the guidelines, obtain permission from property owners, and place a cache that does not require taking apart other people's things.

9.3k · October 18, 2010

...And, let's face it, it's the jury that determines what's vandalism.

Only in a round-about kinda way. The process is actually a lot more convoluted than that.

Let's apply this cache to a hypothetical scenario:

Step 1 ) Citizen does something. (In this case, chipping several bricks whilst replacing them)

Step 2 ) Property owner sees this and calls the cops.

Step 3 ) Cop arrives, investigates and determines the cacher's actions were not "willful and/or malicious"

Step 4 ) Cop advises property owner that the elements for criminal mischief are not there, so no arrest can be made.

Step 5 ) Property owner insists a report needs to be made anyhow.

Step 6 ) Cop writes a report describing the situation, submitting it to the State Attorney's Office.

Step 7 ) SAO reviews case law, coming to the same conclusion as the cop. No willful and malicious behavior = no criminal mischief.

If we change Step 4 and/or Step 7, so this does go to trial, it will be decided by a Judge, during suppression hearings, if the specific actions of the citizen meet the legal definition of criminal mischief. Assuming we change enough facts so the Judge rules in favor of continuing the process, the jury will only determine if the citizen did the actions he is accused of, not if those actions were illegal. The Judge will issue instructions to the jury, advising them that if they decide the citizen did this thing, they must vote in favor of a conviction.

The property owner would have a much easier time going after the hider and/or the seekers, in civil court, as the standard there does not require a persons actions to be willful and malicious.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Clan Riffster

2.2k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s). I can't believe all the mud slinging over this. And the instigator is probably sitting back laughing at all of you fighting over it. I live on LI, but about an hour or so from the archived cache and would not have even heard about it if y'all hadn't made such a big to do over it.

IMHO this thread should be locked. And some of you should go cache or something. Geez

While there has been a lot of mud slinging, it's mostly been by people who should have kept their noses out of the situation, it seems.

You got that part right... You're from... where?!?

LIBEL? Gimmee a break. Talk about sticking your nose into something...

Actually, most of the "locals" have moved on from this incident. It's the rest of the country that keeps debating the issues.

From what I've learned, Hallycat probably has it about right. I could find out more, but I just don't care.

I think this attitude is shared by the *vast majority* of local cachers.

(edit to add: That means about 20 of us :angry: )

Edited October 18, 2010 by hukilaulau

1.4k · October 18, 2010

I've read this entire thread, and I think that on a few levels, there are lots of you who are silly for continuing to post for as long as you have.

Don't know if it'll be seen or not, but I'll ask a mod to close this thread. It has nowhere else to go.

So now you're deciding to police the thread about policing a cache?

Threads have a life of their own. If they get nasty or out of line, the moderators will do their job and close them down. Otherwise, as long as someone is interested enough in the subject to keep posting, why do you feel a need to try to get the thread closed?

Edited to take the high road.

Edited October 18, 2010 by J The Goat

October 18, 2010

October 18, 2010

I've read this entire thread, and I think that on a few levels, there are lots of you who are silly for continuing to post for as long as you have.

Don't know if it'll be seen or not, but I'll ask a mod to close this thread. It has nowhere else to go.

So now you're deciding to police the thread about policing a cache?

Threads have a life of their own. If they get nasty or out of line, the moderators will do their job and close them down. Otherwise, as long as someone is interested enough in the subject to keep posting, why do you feel a need to try to get the thread closed?

Edited to take the high road.

In response to your deleted post (that appears in the Inbox of everyone subscribed to this thread): I'm not posting here simply to argue. I feel that an ugly situation arose, a lot of people jumped on the band wagon to castigate the CO, and a lot of nasty things were said that needed to be addressed.

Since the purpose of the forums is for us to share out thoughts, I did just that. When someone disagrees with me, I will respond. If you see this as simply wanting to argue, that's certainly your privilege.

Calling for the thread to be locked just sounds like censorship to me. As I stated before, no one has to read the thread, so what purpose does locking it serve? If people are being civil, they should have every right to continue posting.

It has been pointed out that there has been some rancor in some of the posts, and as I said before I apologize for posting in an inappropriate way. I didn't say offensive, because one persons definition of offensive may be anything that they disagree with.

It is entirely possible to have a civil discussion of a subject with a wide range of opinions, as long as people don't resort to name calling, insults, accusing people without proof, or other useless stratagems intended simply to muddy the opposition.

Since you edited your post to reflect your desire to take the high road, I applaud you. Fortunately most of the posts in this thread have also taken the approach, which is part of why this is a useful and viable thread to keep open.

October 18, 2010

Your advice to not be hostile and attacking was good -- and perhaps something you should consider, too.

Yes, you're right--we may be alike in that way. I tend to over-react and come out slashing with sarcasm and or insulting language when I perceive a post is way off mark and/or mean spirited. Cordiality it is then!! :angry:

October 18, 2010

And, let's face it, it's the jury that determines what's vandalism.

Not really. A Jury decides the FACTS in a case. The Judge instructs the jury on the LAW in effect in the jurisdiction.

For Example, the instructions to the jury might go along these lines: "If you find that the defendant did in fact remove 15 bricks from the wall, and did so with malicious intent, you must return a verdict of guilty."

October 18, 2010

Your advice to not be hostile and attacking was good -- and perhaps something you should consider, too.

Yes, you're right--we may be alike in that way. I tend to over-react and come out slashing with sarcasm and or insulting language when I perceive a post is way off mark and/or mean spirited. Cordiality it is then!!

That's a cool attitude, and I appreciate it. I think it's easy to type something quickly, and not realize how strongly/harshly it comes across (I know I'm guilty of this).

I'm (slowly) learning to edit my thoughts/responses BEFORE I hit submit... Give it another decade and I'll be all squared away!

October 18, 2010

And, let's face it, it's the jury that determines what's vandalism.

Not really. A Jury decides the FACTS in a case. The Judge instructs the jury on the LAW in effect in the jurisdiction.

For Example, the instructions to the jury might go along these lines: "If you find that the defendant did in fact remove 15 bricks from the wall, and did so with malicious intent, you must return a verdict of guilty."

Sorry I see now this was covered already. Edit button not working for me.

1.4k · October 18, 2010

I've read this entire thread, and I think that on a few levels, there are lots of you who are silly for continuing to post for as long as you have.

Don't know if it'll be seen or not, but I'll ask a mod to close this thread. It has nowhere else to go.

So now you're deciding to police the thread about policing a cache?

Threads have a life of their own. If they get nasty or out of line, the moderators will do their job and close them down. Otherwise, as long as someone is interested enough in the subject to keep posting, why do you feel a need to try to get the thread closed?

Edited to take the high road.

In response to your deleted post (that appears in the Inbox of everyone subscribed to this thread): I'm not posting here simply to argue. I feel that an ugly situation arose, a lot of people jumped on the band wagon to castigate the CO, and a lot of nasty things were said that needed to be addressed.

Since the purpose of the forums is for us to share out thoughts, I did just that. When someone disagrees with me, I will respond. If you see this as simply wanting to argue, that's certainly your privilege.

Calling for the thread to be locked just sounds like censorship to me. As I stated before, no one has to read the thread, so what purpose does locking it serve? If people are being civil, they should have every right to continue posting.

It has been pointed out that there has been some rancor in some of the posts, and as I said before I apologize for posting in an inappropriate way. I didn't say offensive, because one persons definition of offensive may be anything that they disagree with.

It is entirely possible to have a civil discussion of a subject with a wide range of opinions, as long as people don't resort to name calling, insults, accusing people without proof, or other useless stratagems intended simply to muddy the opposition.

Since you edited your post to reflect your desire to take the high road, I applaud you. Fortunately most of the posts in this thread have also taken the approach, which is part of why this is a useful and viable thread to keep open.

Just a couple things. First, I was aware that those watching this thread would see the initial post. I wasn't trying to hide it. I had an interesting morning, logged on, and typed before thinking. Then I hit the submit button. Whoops!

Your definition of censorship must be a bit different than mine. Closing a thread isn't censoring anything, it's stopping a conversation that, although has remained mostly civil, probably won't continue that way. You've been around these boards, you know the pattern. The biggest reason I proposed the closing of the thread though, I've already stated. There's been no new discussion for several pages. Recycled conversation is useful? I can't see how. By all means, is someone has something new to say, I'll be the first one to listen and consider.

I know I can choose not to read the thread, but it's like a friggin' car accident. I see the dark red box and I just have to look

I saw your apology post, and initially took it as sarcastic. My sincere apologies for that.

Here's another thought back on topic. If the CO and his (her?) friends are going to look at geocaching as a regional competition and taunt people from other places, circumstances aside, there are going to be lots more problems like this in the future. I'm starting to avoid more and more urban hides. This is a classic reason why.

Now it's off to try to get my head straight. Good luck with that.....

1k · October 18, 2010

First off: Nice Photoshop.

Second: Why should this be locked?

I have not seen you post in this thread until just now requesting a locking of the thread.

Why would you ask to have it locked?

There is a spirited debate going on here about the circumstances of this particular cache.

These forums are the right and proper place to have such discussions, I am always bothered when people editorialize in cache notes (especially people that have not stood at the GZ). Lurkers stepping in and trying to stifle that debate in a thread is (in my opinion), wrong.

If I want to come here and debate or argue with others about the nuances of a particular cache, or D/T ratings, or lifting bricks, that is on me. I am willing to challenge the others here to a battle of wits, knowing full well that I may be the one that is unarmed.

4.2k · October 18, 2010

NOBODY said or implied that "Because a cache hasn't been found yet, it MUST be a hoax?!"

I guess you haven't been reading the same thread as me.

From the opening post in the thread:

The owner has exactly ONE find. The log history includes several snarky responses from the CO to people that couldn't find it. From reading the logs, I'm wondering if this cache listing is entirely fake, and the CO is "punking" the local cache community? Seems very weird.

I normally would say its really tough, however with 1 find I'm calling shenanigans.

Yep, I am getting the feeling its a hoax and part of me wanna post a NA log for being a jerk.

This is a joke, especially after the CO deleted the 3 finds. What a waste of time for the 20-something people who searched for it.

I have joined the camp that thinks this is a hoax. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to weird.

October 18, 2010

I didnt say this was a hoax. I thought they found the cache and he deleted the finds. We found out later that was a cache somebody else placed there. But I was skeptical the entire time.

Edited October 18, 2010 by EhFhQ

14k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s). I can't believe all the mud slinging over this. And the instigator is probably sitting back laughing at all of you fighting over it. I live on LI, but about an hour or so from the archived cache and would not have even heard about it if y'all hadn't made such a big to do over it.

IMHO this thread should be locked. And some of you should go cache or something. Geez

What do you mean -- "done this sort of thing numerous times"? Done what - made difficult hides?

It seems like this cacher is guilty of nothing more than making a difficult hide that couldn't be found by the locals.

Maybe I missed something but as far as I can tell from the page listing, the caches was never actually found.

The CO claims that the coords were verified, but unless someone has logged a find using those coordinates, how do we know if the coordinates are really accurate, especially when the CO claims that they couldn't find the easy throw down at the published coordinate where the CO tells us are accurate.

The CO also tells us that it's rated correctly, but I have a hard time believing that LI cachers are so inept and finding a cache that a 2.5 difficulty cache can rack up as many DNFs as it has without a find. Maybe the cache rating system does produce a 2.5, if you provide the appropriate answer to the questions, but any sort of auto-rating site is only can be as accurate as the information provided. If the Clayjar system were used it essentially only has one criteria for difficulty and if it spits out a 3, it also say "An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon. "Since experienced cachers have yet to find it, it seems that it should have been at least a 3. Beyond that, is the COs refusal to budge on the rating didn't win any friends in the local community. Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)? I see that quite often when a CO underestimates the difficulty of one of their hides.

As I see it, I put out geocaches for others in the community to find. If people are having a hard time finding it I may raise the difficulty so that it accurately represents the *real world" difficulty, note some almost arbitrary number coming out an auto-rating system. It almost seems like the CO was intent on stumping the local community rather than becoming a part of it.

While there has been a lot of mud slinging, it's mostly been by people who should have kept their noses out of the situation, it seems.

I agree. There has been way too much mud slinging going on by the local geocaching community as well as those in the forum, but I wouldn't exactly consider the CO to be entirely blameless.

1k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

So would I. But the person who found this out failed to divulge the names. She's a good person. I would have outed them in a NY minute :angry:

http://www.ligeocaching.com/index.php?opti...mp;id=5708#5708

19k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

So would I. But the person who found this out failed to divulge the names. She's a good person. I would have outed them in a NY minute

If you cannot or will not provide better evidence than that, I suggest that your accusations are out of line. 2nd hand information, no matter how "good" you might feel that person is, is insufficient to state as fact like that.

14k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

So would I. But the person who found this out failed to divulge the names. She's a good person. I would have outed them in a NY minute

http://www.ligeocaching.com/index.php?opti...mp;id=5708#5708

Not to be confused with the IL minute, which apparently lasts 247.4 seconds.

Edited October 18, 2010 by NYPaddleCacher

10.2k · October 18, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

So would I. But the person who found this out failed to divulge the names. She's a good person. I would have outed them in a NY minute

If you cannot or will not provide better evidence than that, I suggest that your accusations are out of line. 2nd hand information, no matter how "good" you might feel that person is, is insufficient to state as fact like that.

There's been enough outing I think. Like the person who created a sock puppet, gave their number of finds and hides on the cache page, and was easily looked up on cacherstats.com in ummm, a NY minute. By the way, the moderators (or the person who outed them) changed the link earlier in this thread, so they are not outed any more. I'd say that's a good thing.

9.3k · October 19, 2010

Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)?

I still haven't read the cache page and/or the logs, so all I can gather is from remarks made in here. From these, I got the impression that the locals were pretty harsh in their opening statements, way before the CO began replying with even the slightest negativity. If that's true, I can certainly understand him not being willing to budge. I tend to get less helpful when people who don't know me, and have never met me, treat me like I'm a jerk.

19k · October 19, 2010

It has come to my attention that this hider has done this sort of thing numerous times. Obviously under different user ID(s).

I'd love to hear more about this, just out of sheer curiosity.

So would I. But the person who found this out failed to divulge the names. She's a good person. I would have outed them in a NY minute

If you cannot or will not provide better evidence than that, I suggest that your accusations are out of line. 2nd hand information, no matter how "good" you might feel that person is, is insufficient to state as fact like that.

There's been enough outing I think. Like the person who created a sock puppet, gave their number of finds and hides on the cache page, and was easily looked up on cacherstats.com in ummm, a NY minute. By the way, the moderators (or the person who outed them) changed the link earlier in this thread, so they are not outed any more. I'd say that's a good thing.

I'm not asking for an outing. I'm asking to not post unfounded accusations. Put up or shut up (preferably the latter).

Really difficult cache...

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation