LeapFrogging and Container Swapping

[+sbell111]

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

The problem is, there is no rule that directs cache owners on how they MUST make the determination of whether a cache is bogus. No cache owner has ever been required to compare the physical logs to the online logs and delete all online logs that do not correlate to the physical logs.

 

But with all this swapping, a cache owner CANNOT determine that a log is bogus.

 

Suppose a cacher in Germany logs "Greetings from Germany" on 100 of the caches in your power trail. Being a conscientious cache owner, you delete them. He appeals to Groundspeak. You can't prove he didn't log them, since you have no way of knowing where the logs he allegedly signed are now located. You have to allow the log, even if he's never been within a thousand miles of your caches.

 

Once you have created a situation where it is impossible to verify the logs, you are no longer playing the same game as the rest of us. Why even bother to sign the log, if it's impossible to verify anyway?

Why even bother to place the log, if you aren't going to be able to use it to verify finds? And if the only thing in the container is the useless log, why bother with the container? The whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness.

I agree with every single word in your post. Unfortunately, unless TPTB make it clear that leapfrogging and playing three-cache-monty is verboten, it is up to the cache owners to decide.

Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+the4dirtydogs]

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

The problem is, there is no rule that directs cache owners on how they MUST make the determination of whether a cache is bogus. No cache owner has ever been required to compare the physical logs to the online logs and delete all online logs that do not correlate to the physical logs.

Also the maintenance is done by the cachers. The owners encourage throw-down caches so you don't have to dnf any caches that you go to.

[knowschad]

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

 

So then, are you busy working on getting that special logging exception cache published? Let me know when your reviewer has published it, OK?

[+sbell111]

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

 

So then, are you busy working on getting that special logging exception cache published? Let me know when your reviewer has published it, OK?

I'm not sure what the point is of your 'challenge'. I've never taken the position that a cache that invites couch potato logs would, could, or should be listed. Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[knowschad]

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

 

So then, are you busy working on getting that special logging exception cache published? Let me know when your reviewer has published it, OK?

I'm not sure what the point is of your 'challenge'. I've never taken the position that such a cache would be listed.

But you do continually take the stance that these things are totally up to the cache owner, which is why I suggest creating this cache. If these things are truely up to the cache owner and Groundspeak has no say in the matter, then the reviewer will publish the cache. Right?

[+the4dirtydogs]

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

The problem is, there is no rule that directs cache owners on how they MUST make the determination of whether a cache is bogus. No cache owner has ever been required to compare the physical logs to the online logs and delete all online logs that do not correlate to the physical logs.

 

But with all this swapping, a cache owner CANNOT determine that a log is bogus.

 

Suppose a cacher in Germany logs "Greetings from Germany" on 100 of the caches in your power trail. Being a conscientious cache owner, you delete them. He appeals to Groundspeak. You can't prove he didn't log them, since you have no way of knowing where the logs he allegedly signed are now located. You have to allow the log, even if he's never been within a thousand miles of your caches.

 

Once you have created a situation where it is impossible to verify the logs, you are no longer playing the same game as the rest of us. Why even bother to sign the log, if it's impossible to verify anyway?

Why even bother to place the log, if you aren't going to be able to use it to verify finds? And if the only thing in the container is the useless log, why bother with the container? The whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness.

I agree with you on this as well. When we went back out to finish the RT 66 series we left off at 600. We found our names already on the logs up to the 700's. At one point we were saying why bother even finishing the trail nobody's checking the logs. We finished the trail and had a fun time. There really is no reason to take the cache and move it to another location. Power Trails have become the exception to normal caching. I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

[knowschad]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

[+FloridaFour]

First of all, I would never do one of these power trails, they just do not appeal to me at all....

 

If I did do a power trail, I would not leapfrog or cache swap or use 2 or 3 or 10 cars.

 

HOWEVER, if it is ok with the cache owners themselves, then I do not care how other people do it. If the cacher finder and cache owner are both happy, great!

[+sbell111]

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

 

So then, are you busy working on getting that special logging exception cache published? Let me know when your reviewer has published it, OK?

I'm not sure what the point is of your 'challenge'. I've never taken the position that such a cache would be listed.

But you do continually take the stance that these things are totally up to the cache owner, which is why I suggest creating this cache. If these things are truely up to the cache owner and Groundspeak has no say in the matter, then the reviewer will publish the cache. Right?

With few exceptions, the arbiter of whether a find has been made is the cache owner. As I recall, even in the rare cases of armchair virts and pocket caches, TPTB chose to archive and lock the cache, not wade in to make a ruling on individual logs. Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+Ecylram]

With few exceptions, the arbiter of whether a find has been made is the cache owner. As I recall, even in the rare cases of armchair virts and pocket caches, TPTB chose to archive and lock the cache, not wade in to make a ruling on individual logs.

Sbell111 is correct and for good reason. It's just not practical for 150 reviewers to police logs on 1.3 million caches. As imperfect as it is, it really is up to the Cache Owner to maintain their logs just as it is their responsibility to maintain the physical caches. TPTB, as with many aspects of this broad game, give the Cache Owner broad flexibility to carry out those duties.

 

As frustrating as that broad leeway can be at times, it also allows for more creativity and individuality to enter into the game than there would be otherwise.

 

[knowschad]

That takes us back to my question: when does a cache become part of a powertrail, and therefore subject to special logging exceptions?

A cache is a cache, regardless of whether it is part of a power trail. Whether any cache is subject to 'special logging exceptions' is a determination made by the cache owner unless and until TPTB make a rule that states otherwise.

 

So then, are you busy working on getting that special logging exception cache published? Let me know when your reviewer has published it, OK?

I'm not sure what the point is of your 'challenge'. I've never taken the position that such a cache would be listed.

But you do continually take the stance that these things are totally up to the cache owner, which is why I suggest creating this cache. If these things are truely up to the cache owner and Groundspeak has no say in the matter, then the reviewer will publish the cache. Right?

With few exceptions, the arbiter of whether a find has been made is the cache owner. As I recall, even in the rare cases of armchair virts and pocket caches, TPTB chose to archive and lock the cache, not wade in to make a ruling on individual logs.

I think you are making my point. If TPTB chose to archive and lock those caches, then they also would likely not publish the one that I am suggesting, which would indicate to me that TPTB officially does not condone allowing online logs without the physical log being signed.

 

I think the requirement that a cache have a container pretty much supports that argument, as well.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

I'm sorry, but a game without rules, where everyone plays their own way, just doesn't sound like fun. I can't imagine playing poker or blackjack and getting away with "play however you want". What's the point?

 

The way this "game" seems to be heading, I'm not sure I will be able to play anymore at some point in the future. I mean, why even bother, if all that's important is racking up as many smiley icons on a website as you can, as fast as you can? Is that all there is to this "game" now? Film cans under a rock every 530 feet for 50 miles along some road? A thousand smileys a day? Big deal.

 

*shrug* Oh well. Do what you will. Break's over, gotta get back to work. The annual financial auditors are whining they want more paperwork out of me. Back to our regularly scheduled debate.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

[+succotash]

Both are things we would not do.

 

Leapfrogging seems like it's a matter of your own ethics. But cache swapping seems much worse - it seems like it DOES impact other cachers and cache owners. If we sign the log on CacheA and don't do CacheB, and someone else moves CacheA to CacheB, they have created a falsehood. The logs for CacheA and CacheB are no longer accurate. If a cache owner wanted to verify signatures, he can no longer do so. Maybe I'm missing something, but since physically signing the paper log is a key part of caching, cache swapping seems just as inappropriate as ripping pages out of a logbook.

[+TRUROKR]

You can call it what you want. I call it cheating.

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm sorry, but a game without rules, where everyone plays their own way, just doesn't sound like fun. I can't imagine playing poker or blackjack and getting away with "play however you want". What's the point?

 

The way this "game" seems to be heading, I'm not sure I will be able to play anymore at some point in the future. I mean, why even bother, if all that's important is racking up as many smiley icons on a website as you can, as fast as you can? Is that all there is to this "game" now? Film cans under a rock every 530 feet for 50 miles along some road? A thousand smileys a day? Big deal.

I'm glad this activity doesn't have a whole lot of rules and allows everyone a fair amount of flexibility to participate in many different ways. I find it fun precisely because I can shape it into something that I really enjoy doing. And if that starts to get boring, then I can reshape it into something more interesting for me at that moment.

 

I guess I consider geocaching to be more of an "activity" rather than a "game." I'm not competing against anybody other than myself.

 

Different people participate in many different ways, so it's not very meaningful to compare numbers between different accounts. Some accounts are teams, while others are individuals. Some will request extra hints or will phone a friend, while others will not. Some will claim traditional smileys only if they sign the log, while others will make exceptions.

 

Vive la différence.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Both are things we would not do.

 

Leapfrogging seems like it's a matter of your own ethics. But cache swapping seems much worse - it seems like it DOES impact other cachers and cache owners. If we sign the log on CacheA and don't do CacheB, and someone else moves CacheA to CacheB, they have created a falsehood. The logs for CacheA and CacheB are no longer accurate. If a cache owner wanted to verify signatures, he can no longer do so. Maybe I'm missing something, but since physically signing the paper log is a key part of caching, cache swapping seems just as inappropriate as ripping pages out of a logbook.

I believe what your missing is the fact the owners of these power trails don't check the logs. They put these out for just a numbers run. No maintenace needed, its done by the cachers that run the trail.

[+sbell111]

I'm sorry, but a game without rules, where everyone plays their own way, just doesn't sound like fun. I can't imagine playing poker or blackjack and getting away with "play however you want". What's the point?

I don't think that this is where we are. We have guidelines. At the point where the guidelines end, individual cache owners are allowed to make 'rules' as to what must be done to 'find' the cache. For some cache owners, the only answer is 'sign the logbook'. Others will happily accept unsigned logbooks, with good reason. Others allow leapfrogging and three-cache-monty but might not allow someone to armchair log them all. Either way, each cache owner makes rules for his cache that he is comfortable with. In this sense, it's not so different from playing monopoly. Your family may play with house rules (such as fees go to free parking) while your neighbor sticks to the printed rules. Either way, the game has rules and the players have fun.

[+redsox_mark]

Both are things we would not do.

 

Leapfrogging seems like it's a matter of your own ethics. But cache swapping seems much worse - it seems like it DOES impact other cachers and cache owners. If we sign the log on CacheA and don't do CacheB, and someone else moves CacheA to CacheB, they have created a falsehood. The logs for CacheA and CacheB are no longer accurate. If a cache owner wanted to verify signatures, he can no longer do so. Maybe I'm missing something, but since physically signing the paper log is a key part of caching, cache swapping seems just as inappropriate as ripping pages out of a logbook.

 

I agree 100% (and said something similar on post #71).

[knowschad]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

[+sbell111]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

It should be noted that this game has 'rules'. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's useful to look for one without them.

 

Also, the mere fact that this game does have rules doesn't mean that people don't have significant leeway to play it differently than one another.

Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+the4dirtydogs]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

[4wheelin_fool]

It's odd that cachers would ignore some guidelines by moving caches, but adhere to others by signing logs. This creates the impression of a hierarchy of types of guidelines in which some are more special than others.

 

By allowing this, the cache owners have created their own form of the game which conflicts with the views of others. The flexibility of allowing owners to monitor their own caches is then stretched to the limit beyond what was initially perceived.

 

Although it does not directly affect other cache owners, it passively creates a different environment which may have an eventual effect on other caches. First trading died, and then writing something unique in the logbook faded away, next online logs are minimalized. I can't imagine how much further it could go, until all caches are viewed as disposable perhaps. The actions will eventually have a carryover effect in some way.

 

They really should separate the competition caches, or number caches from the others with a different attribute or icon. Early on, the micro explosion did not seem to be affecting other caches, but they did. In the beginning if the micros were given a unique icon saying "log only" perhaps the carryover effect would not have occurred, or at least would have been slower. There should at least be a visual guide that says "these are different".

[+sbell111]

I don't feel that I have been restricted from trading or writing in the logbook or typing as much as I want in my online log (to a point). Similarly, I am not being forced to treat caches within a power trail any differently than those outside of one. Further, just because a cache owner is lax in what he requires, doesn't mean that I must leapfrog or play three-cache-monty.

Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+rosebud55112]

So suppose I've found a beautiful little scenic overlook on Rte 100, and put a cache there--maybe a small film canister behind the mileage sign, so I don't ruin the view or encourage a geotrail to form, and I keep good care of it for two years--checking every month for damage, signatures, etc., then Bob Powerowner throws canisters down every tenth of a mile on either side for 50 miles both directions.

 

Do people think they still have the moral right to swap a new container for mine, and take mine down the road?

[4wheelin_fool]

It's odd that cachers would ignore some guidelines by moving caches, but adhere to others by signing logs. This creates the impression of a hierarchy of types of guidelines in which some are more special than others.

 

By allowing this, the cache owners have created their own form of the game which conflicts with the views of others. The flexibility of allowing owners to monitor their own caches is then stretched to the limit beyond what was initially perceived.

 

Although it does not directly affect other cache owners, it passively creates a different environment which may have an eventual effect on other caches. First trading died, and then writing something unique in the logbook faded away, next online logs are minimalized. I can't imagine how much further it could go, until all caches are viewed as disposable perhaps. The actions will eventually have a carryover effect in some way.

 

They really should separate the competition caches, or number caches from the others with a different attribute or icon. Early on, the micro explosion did not seem to be affecting other caches, but they did. In the beginning if the micros were given a unique icon saying "log only" perhaps the carryover effect would not have occurred, or at least would have been slower. There should at least be a visual guide that says "these are different".

I don't feel that I have been restricted from trading or writing in the logbook or typing as much as I want in my online log (to a point). Similarly, I am not being forced to treat caches within a power trail any differently than those outside of one. Further, just because a cache owner is lax in what he requires, doesn't mean that I must leapfrog or play three-cache-monty.

 

You may do things your own way, which is fine. However the majority will follow the majority. Why did initial caching practices such as writing meaningful logs fade away? Because that's what everyone else was doing. In a social activity most people are going to try to fit in rather than stand out.

[4wheelin_fool]

So suppose I've found a beautiful little scenic overlook on Rte 100, and put a cache there--maybe a small film canister behind the mileage sign, so I don't ruin the view or encourage a geotrail to form, and I keep good care of it for two years--checking every month for damage, signatures, etc., then Bob Powerowner throws canisters down every tenth of a mile on either side for 50 miles both directions.

 

Do people think they still have the moral right to swap a new container for mine, and take mine down the road?

 

Right now they won't, but eventually someone will.

[+sbell111]

So suppose I've found a beautiful little scenic overlook on Rte 100, and put a cache there--maybe a small film canister behind the mileage sign, so I don't ruin the view or encourage a geotrail to form, and I keep good care of it for two years--checking every month for damage, signatures, etc., then Bob Powerowner throws canisters down every tenth of a mile on either side for 50 miles both directions.

 

Do people think they still have the moral right to swap a new container for mine, and take mine down the road?

I wouldn't think so.

[+sbell111]

It's odd that cachers would ignore some guidelines by moving caches, but adhere to others by signing logs. This creates the impression of a hierarchy of types of guidelines in which some are more special than others.

 

By allowing this, the cache owners have created their own form of the game which conflicts with the views of others. The flexibility of allowing owners to monitor their own caches is then stretched to the limit beyond what was initially perceived.

 

Although it does not directly affect other cache owners, it passively creates a different environment which may have an eventual effect on other caches. First trading died, and then writing something unique in the logbook faded away, next online logs are minimalized. I can't imagine how much further it could go, until all caches are viewed as disposable perhaps. The actions will eventually have a carryover effect in some way.

 

They really should separate the competition caches, or number caches from the others with a different attribute or icon. Early on, the micro explosion did not seem to be affecting other caches, but they did. In the beginning if the micros were given a unique icon saying "log only" perhaps the carryover effect would not have occurred, or at least would have been slower. There should at least be a visual guide that says "these are different".

I don't feel that I have been restricted from trading or writing in the logbook or typing as much as I want in my online log (to a point). Similarly, I am not being forced to treat caches within a power trail any differently than those outside of one. Further, just because a cache owner is lax in what he requires, doesn't mean that I must leapfrog or play three-cache-monty.

 

You may do things your own way, which is fine. However the majority will follow the majority. Why did initial caching practices such as writing meaningful logs fade away? Because that's what everyone else was doing. In a social activity most people are going to try to fit in rather than stand out.

People still write meaningful logs. In every thread about C&P logs, there are plenty of people proudly stating that they write good ones.

[+sbell111]

So suppose I've found a beautiful little scenic overlook on Rte 100, and put a cache there--maybe a small film canister behind the mileage sign, so I don't ruin the view or encourage a geotrail to form, and I keep good care of it for two years--checking every month for damage, signatures, etc., then Bob Powerowner throws canisters down every tenth of a mile on either side for 50 miles both directions.

 

Do people think they still have the moral right to swap a new container for mine, and take mine down the road?

 

Right now they won't, but eventually someone will.

At that point the owner of the cache will take action and make it clear that such behavior is not acceptable. I don't think that any of us need worry that all of the sudden people are going to think that it's OK to move around everyone's caches just because some owners of cache

series allow the practice on their caches. (Not that I wouldn't be happy if TPTB declred that caches who's owners allow three-cache-monty will have their caches immediately archived.)

[+Avernar]

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

[knowschad]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

It should be noted that this game has 'rules'. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's useful to look for one without them.

 

Also, the mere fact that this game does have rules doesn't mean that people don't have significant leeway to play it differently than one another.

Yeah, that's the great thing about rules... we each get to make up our own.

[knowschad]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

The quote hierarchy should make it very clear where I'm coming from.

[+Avernar]

At the end of the day, this is a game that only involves two people; the cache owner and the cache seeker. In general, if these two people agree that a find is made, then it can be logged online and TPTB will do nothing about it.

You're wrong about that. Virtual caches have been archived when the CO allowed bogus finds to stand. Care to do an experiment and encourage armchair logging on one of your traditionals and see what happens?

 

If I'm not mistaken, the only time TPTB have taken a stand on this issue was with pocket caches.

Funny you should mention pocket caches because Cache Swapping is so similar. They're bringing the container to the cacher and not the cacher to the container.

[+L0ne.R]

It's odd that cachers would ignore some guidelines by moving caches, but adhere to others by signing logs. This creates the impression of a hierarchy of types of guidelines in which some are more special than others.

 

By allowing this, the cache owners have created their own form of the game which conflicts with the views of others. The flexibility of allowing owners to monitor their own caches is then stretched to the limit beyond what was initially perceived.

 

Although it does not directly affect other cache owners, it passively creates a different environment which may have an eventual effect on other caches. First trading died, and then writing something unique in the logbook faded away, next online logs are minimalized. I can't imagine how much further it could go, until all caches are viewed as disposable perhaps. The actions will eventually have a carryover effect in some way.

 

They really should separate the competition caches, or number caches from the others with a different attribute or icon. Early on, the micro explosion did not seem to be affecting other caches, but they did. In the beginning if the micros were given a unique icon saying "log only" perhaps the carryover effect would not have occurred, or at least would have been slower. There should at least be a visual guide that says "these are different".

 

+ 1

 

So well said. Trends....that's the scary bit.

 

I too have wanted to see a separation of log-only caches.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

The quote hierarchy should make it very clear where I'm coming from.

I'm still at a loss to what your trying to get at. I wasn't trying to give examples of games with no rules, so calling me out to give an example was a little off to me.

[knowschad]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

The quote hierarchy should make it very clear where I'm coming from.

I'm still at a loss to what your trying to get at. I wasn't trying to give examples of games with no rules, so calling me out to give an example was a little off to me.

You said: people play the way they want to. (eg: you see it as a game without rules)

I said: So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

You said: Hey I [follow the guidelines and] play the way I want to.

I said: So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example?

... and so on. It has all been in response to your assertion that people can "play the game they way they want to", which I say is calling it a game with no rules. So I am simply asking for another example of such a game.

[+Kit Fox]

Some geocachers should visit these giant trails, and permanently anchor all the film canisters. This would tick off the Leapsters, and swappers.

[knowschad]

Some geocachers should visit these giant trails, and permanently anchor all the film canisters. This would tick off the Leapsters, and swappers.

Nawww... not for one second. They'd just toss a replacement down. Again. And again.

[+StarBrand]

Some geocachers should visit these giant trails, and permanently anchor all the film canisters. This would tick off the Leapsters, and swappers.

Nawww... not for one second. They'd just toss a replacement down. Again. And again.

Like they already haven't........ again and again.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Some geocachers should visit these giant trails, and permanently anchor all the film canisters. This would tick off the Leapsters, and swappers.

 

I was thinking that very thing not long ago, and imagined embedding each of the film cans in a block of concrete in the ground at each cache spot so they couldn't move. But then that pesky "no digging" guideline (rule) flashed in my head... the one about no pointy objects... so I had to dismiss the idea.

[+sbell111]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

It should be noted that this game has 'rules'. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's useful to look for one without them.

 

Also, the mere fact that this game does have rules doesn't mean that people don't have significant leeway to play it differently than one another.

Yeah, that's the great thing about rules... we each get to make up our own.

As a cache owner, you do get to make up your own rules, to an extent. You are welcome to require that the logbook be signed, for instance.

[+sbell111]

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived. Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened. A reviewer is free to pop in and explain why my guess is wrong.

[+sbell111]

At the end of the day, this is a game that only involves two people; the cache owner and the cache seeker. In general, if these two people agree that a find is made, then it can be logged online and TPTB will do nothing about it.

You're wrong about that. Virtual caches have been archived when the CO allowed bogus finds to stand. Care to do an experiment and encourage armchair logging on one of your traditionals and see what happens?

I've mentioned armchair logging in a number of my posts on this issue. Suffice it to say that they were covered by the bolded bit.

If I'm not mistaken, the only time TPTB have taken a stand on this issue was with pocket caches.

Funny you should mention pocket caches because Cache Swapping is so similar. They're bringing the container to the cacher and not the cacher to the container.

It occurs to me that you think that I am pro-three-cache-monty. I'm not sure why you believe this. I've actually taken the position on a number of occasions that a cache owner who allows such practice should have his cache archived. However, my wanting it to happen doesn't make it so. TPTB are the ones to make that decision. At this point, they can either come out and state that this practice is unnacceptable or they can keep quiet on it, thereby giving their tacit approval to the practice. Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

The quote hierarchy should make it very clear where I'm coming from.

I'm still at a loss to what your trying to get at. I wasn't trying to give examples of games with no rules, so calling me out to give an example was a little off to me.

You said: people play the way they want to. (eg: you see it as a game without rules)

I said: So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

You said: Hey I [follow the guidelines and] play the way I want to.

I said: So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example?

... and so on. It has all been in response to your assertion that people can "play the game they way they want to", which I say is calling it a game with no rules. So I am simply asking for another example of such a game.

In my opinion, you are not accounting for the fact that people can play the game in a number of ways (i.e. "the way they want to") and still stay within the guidelines. Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+the4dirtydogs]

I always remember it's just a game and people play the way they want to. No biggie.

So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

Hey I follow the guidelines and play the way I want to. I can't and you can't control the way other people play. If cachers want to leapfrog and swap containers then thats up to them and the CO. It really doesn't hurt me, you or any other cacher.

So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example of a game that has no rules?

I never said anything about rules. I wasn't talking about rules. Maybe you missed something or just adding something. So I really don't know where your coming from on this one. All games have rules or some sort of guideline. If you play by them is up to you. It really has nothing to do with me. So what are you getting at with your examples?

The quote hierarchy should make it very clear where I'm coming from.

I'm still at a loss to what your trying to get at. I wasn't trying to give examples of games with no rules, so calling me out to give an example was a little off to me.

You said: people play the way they want to. (eg: you see it as a game without rules)

I said: So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

You said: Hey I [follow the guidelines and] play the way I want to.

I said: So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example?

... and so on. It has all been in response to your assertion that people can "play the game they way they want to", which I say is calling it a game with no rules. So I am simply asking for another example of such a game.

Oh I see where YOU went wrong. YOU think I see it as a game with NO rules. Well your VERY wrong in that assumption. It all makes sense now. You added the assumption part to my statement. GOTCHA. Thanks for the clarification.

[+northernpenguin]

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived. Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened. A reviewer is free to pop in and explain why my guess is wrong.

 

We had a (Power Trail) cache owner in Brantford, Ontario who started posting notes that they had moved away from the area and would the next cacher please bring a replacement (cache | container | logbook). Each cache that had that note saw a followup note from the local reviewer indicating that it was a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches and to remove the notes. Each cache was later archived.

 

The reviewers certainly do not smile on CO's who let others do their maintenance / throw downs. At least, in THIS part of the world they frown on it.

[+the4dirtydogs]

You said: people play the way they want to. (eg: you see it as a game without rules)

I said: So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

You said: Hey I [follow the guidelines and] play the way I want to.

I said: So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example?

... and so on. It has all been in response to your assertion that people can "play the game they way they want to", which I say is calling it a game with no rules. So I am simply asking for another example of such a game.

Oh I see where YOU went wrong. YOU think I see it as a game with NO rules. Well your VERY wrong in that assumption. It all makes sense now. You added the assumption part to my statement. GOTCHA. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, I saw that you said that YOU play by the rules (guidelines). I did not assume that you don't. What I saw was what seems/seemed to me to be support of those that ignore the basic rules of the game.

No I don't support those who ignore the basic rules at all. I'm saying YOU can't controll the way others play the game on these power trails. If the COs allow this play how can you stop cachers from using creative logging. That's when I say it's just a game and let it be.

[+sbell111]

You said: people play the way they want to. (eg: you see it as a game without rules)

I said: So, because it's a game, it should have no rules? Got another example?

You said: Hey I [follow the guidelines and] play the way I want to.

I said: So, your answer then is "no"... you can't give me another example?

... and so on. It has all been in response to your assertion that people can "play the game they way they want to", which I say is calling it a game with no rules. So I am simply asking for another example of such a game.

Oh I see where YOU went wrong. YOU think I see it as a game with NO rules. Well your VERY wrong in that assumption. It all makes sense now. You added the assumption part to my statement. GOTCHA. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, I saw that you said that YOU play by the rules (guidelines). I did not assume that you don't. What I saw was what seems/seemed to me to be support of those that ignore the basic rules of the game.

I think that the difference in your position and that of those who leapfrog or play three-cache-monty (or allow it on their caches) is that you believe that there are rules that forbid such behavior. Edited February 23, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived. Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened. A reviewer is free to pop in and explain why my guess is wrong.

 

We had a (Power Trail) cache owner in Brantford, Ontario who started posting notes that they had moved away from the area and would the next cacher please bring a replacement (cache | container | logbook). Each cache that had that note saw a followup note from the local reviewer indicating that it was a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches and to remove the notes. Each cache was later archived.

 

The reviewers certainly do not smile on CO's who let others do their maintenance / throw downs. At least, in THIS part of the world they frown on it.

What you experienced is what happens with all caches. When the cache owner moved away without either adopting out the caches or establishing an acceptable maintenance plan, the caches were found to violate the guidelines and were archived.

 

As I understand it, the situation with the power trail being discussed in this thread is different in that the cache owners are willing and able to promptly respond to the maintenance needs of their caches. The mere fact that they welcome assistance from the community does not in and of itself put the caches in violation.