MINGO in jeopardy?

[+DanOCan]

I just want an answer one way or the other. My route back from Geowoodstock X depends on whether or not this cache is active or not. I'm hoping by then I won't be put in the position where I have to weigh my own personal Geocaching values and determine whether or not I can log a Found It on a throwdown micro on a Disabled cache and still feel good about myself.

 

I'd be completely OK with the CO changing the size to a Micro and re-enabling the cache. The fact that it hasn't happened and yet Hemlock hasn't pulled the Archive switch gives me hope something is going on out of the public eye to resolve the situation.

[+Castle Mischief]

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.

But you know what they say about opinions...

 

I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history".

Could you expand upon that? I'm not asking to be difficult. I honestly don't see what you are saying. What guideline bits am I ignoring? While I despise throw downs on general principle, especially when the throw down in question doesn't match the size of the original, so long as the cache owner accepts the throw down as a maintenance assist, have the guidelines been violated? Obviously we all recognize that it is the cache owner's responsibility to do maintenance. That's a given. I just don't think that having maintenance done by proxy, even if the proxy is granted after the fact, violates any guidelines.

 

Maintenance was needed.

 

Maintenance was performed.

 

(Just not by the same person)

 

If one of my ammo cans walked away, obviously, it would be in need of maintenance.

 

If you were to throw down an ammo can, would that not be an act of maintenance by proxy?

 

Likewise, if you were to throw down a small Lock & Lock, would that not be an act of maintenance by proxy?

 

What about a film can? If we accept that maintenance by proxy does not violate the guidelines, all that's left is size.

 

If I were to replace my stolen ammo can with a film can, would that violate the guidelines?

 

As to history, yeah, I am one of those guys who place a certain degree of value on longevity of a cache listing, and adding ones name to a list of cacher's names going back over a decade, in a hobby where most such lists are lucky to last a 10th of that time. I acknowledge that other folks don't feel the same way. But in my mind, the guidelines come first. If a cache is in need of archival, I won't argue to save it based solely on history.

 

-Sean

 

Pretty sure the guidelines are for the owner of the cache, not some random find seeker. The owner is not maintaining the cache. There's no way I'm going to address each point of your bullet list because it's just not that complicated.

 

 

In other news, when did you start signing your forum post? That is soooooo 1998.

[Clan Riffster]

It is my opinion...

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.

But you know what they say about opinions...

 

I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history".

Could you expand upon that? I'm not asking to be difficult.

 

Pretty sure the guidelines are for the owner of the cache, not some random find seeker.

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO. From that, we learn that what Groundspeak really wants is that caches which are placed get maintained. As to who does the maintenance, they seem pretty laid back about that.

 

For instance, a friend of mine owns a night cache in the Ocala National Forest. She does travel quite a bit, so even though this cache is a pretty far piece from her house, under normal circumstances, she was able to respond promptly to maintenance issues. Then something happened, and due to issues beyond her control, she was temporarily unable to make the trip, just when the cache needed some TLC. Even though I was never designated as her official maintenance conductor, I went out and replaced it, with her express consent. Under those circumstances, I don't think either of us violated the guidelines. Our Reviewers were seemingly OK with the replacement, so I don't think Groundspeak had any complaints regarding guideline violations.

 

With maintenance by proxy being legitimized by Groundspeak, what we need to establish is, does said maintenance violate the guidelines when the 'by proxy' part is after the fact? Taking the example above, presume for argument's sake that I made no communications with the cache owner ahead of time. I learned that the cache had degraded, and I took it upon myself to swap it out. She discovers what I did and is grateful for my help, accepting the container I placed as the official one. I replaced her cache without her consent, but after the fact, she gave consent. Have either of us violated any guidelines? I don't think so, and from what I've heard from my Reviewers, presuming that the owner is OK with the replacement, Groundspeak would be OK with it.

 

If I had replaced her cache with a film can, instead of an ammo can, without getting prior permission, and she found out about it, and retroactively gave permission, would either of us have violated the guidelines? I personally think such a replacement is cheesy, but cheesy and guideline violations are not one and the same. With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that throwdown caches, while contemptible, are not guideline violations, so long as the COO is OK with them.

 

At this point, in my mind all that is left for consideration is cache size. Here's where my opinion gets less sure. I know I've heard Reviewers state something to the effect of, they will not outright refuse to publish a cache based solely on the D/T rating and/or the attributes being inaccurate. They might offer some advice regarding the need for accuracy in both fields, but since neither issue is specifically addressed in the guidelines, they will not refuse to publish it... I think?

 

I think the cache size is the same way. There are some suggestions made in the help center regarding cache size, but I don't see anything regarding cache size in the actual guidelines. If throwdowns which are later approved by the CO are not a violation of guidelines, and size accuracy is not specifically required in the actual guidelines, would a CO accepted throwdown of a film can in replacement of an ammo can be a violation? This is too far outside my experience to provide an answer with any degree of certainty. I could be 100% wrong in this, so I welcome any Reviewer or Lackey input.

 

In other news, when did you start signing your forum post? That is soooooo 1998.

Imma kickin' it old school. Yo.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+hzoi]

I just want an answer one way or the other. My route back from Geowoodstock X depends on whether or not this cache is active or not.

 

Well, if you're looking for a May 2000 hide, Arikaree isn't far, and it's even by The Kansas Stasher, too. At the rate things are going (or not going), it may well be the oldest cache in Kansas by the time you get there.

[+jellis]

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO.

 

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy. From what I am seeing is the CO doesn't care about keeping this alive after the rash of disappearances. Probably just letting it die a natural death by reviewer.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO.

 

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy. From what I am seeing is the CO doesn't care about keeping this alive after the rash of disappearances. Probably just letting it die a natural death by reviewer.

 

I'd add that 1) this is not a vacation hide and 2) proxy owners have to be set up in advance before vacation hides will be listed in most, if not all cases. At any rate, this doesn't apply to this cache. At all.

[+jellis]

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO.

 

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy. From what I am seeing is the CO doesn't care about keeping this alive after the rash of disappearances. Probably just letting it die a natural death by reviewer.

 

I'd add that 1) this is not a vacation hide and 2) proxy owners have to be set up in advance before vacation hides will be listed in most, if not all cases. At any rate, this doesn't apply to this cache. At all.

But caches don't last forever. Even old ones. I think right now it is dying a slow agonizing death.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO.

 

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy. From what I am seeing is the CO doesn't care about keeping this alive after the rash of disappearances. Probably just letting it die a natural death by reviewer.

 

I'd add that 1) this is not a vacation hide and 2) proxy owners have to be set up in advance before vacation hides will be listed in most, if not all cases. At any rate, this doesn't apply to this cache. At all.

But caches don't last forever. Even old ones. I think right now it is dying a slow agonizing death.

 

Psst... I'm not disagreeing with you.

[knowschad]

The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides.

That is not referring to just some random cacher that decided to help you out by throwing down a replacement container.

[+jellis]

 

Absolutely. The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides. One simply needs to include the contact information for a local cacher who will be conducting the maintenance duties otherwise required by the CO.

 

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy. From what I am seeing is the CO doesn't care about keeping this alive after the rash of disappearances. Probably just letting it die a natural death by reviewer.

 

I'd add that 1) this is not a vacation hide and 2) proxy owners have to be set up in advance before vacation hides will be listed in most, if not all cases. At any rate, this doesn't apply to this cache. At all.

But caches don't last forever. Even old ones. I think right now it is dying a slow agonizing death.

 

Psst... I'm not disagreeing with you.

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

[+Castle Mischief]

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

 

It's been not ending well for some time now.

[knowschad]

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

 

It's been not ending well for some time now.

 

Yeah, it is starting to remind me of the shootout scenes in some of the old westerns.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

 

It's been not ending well for some time now.

 

Yeah, it is starting to remind me of the shootout scenes in some of the old westerns.

 

It appears that during the shootout a horse has taken a fatal shot.

[knowschad]

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

 

It's been not ending well for some time now.

 

Yeah, it is starting to remind me of the shootout scenes in some of the old westerns.

 

It appears that during the shootout a horse has taken a fatal shot.

 

(Soundtrack with jingling spurs and Lorne Greene singing, "Mingo... Johnny Mingo...". Fade to black... verrrrry slowly)

Edited March 5, 2012 by knowschad

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The "tick...tick..tick" post is gone.

 

Wonder why.

[Clan Riffster]

By what we are seeing or not seeing by the CO is there is not a proxy.

If the label of "proxy" is applied after the fact, is it not still a proxy?

For instance, assume I hide an ammo can. You are planning on finding it.

You see a log posted right before your hunt suggesting that my ammo can got chewed up by a mower.

There's nothing left there but olive drab shrapnel and bits of McToys.

You decide to replace it.

 

Option A: You e-mail me and get explicit permission to replace my ammo can with one of your own.

You have acted as my proxy.

 

Option B: You don't seek permission, but you do replace my ammo can with your own.

I accept your throw-down, and heap praise upon your shoulders for your act of generosity.

Once I accepted the replacement, you became my proxy after the fact.

 

Option C: You don't seek permission, and spit out a film can. I accept your film can.

Once I accepted the replacement, you became my proxy after the fact.

 

Option D: You don't get permission. I grumble and remove your offending throw down.

You have not acted as my proxy.

 

I thought I had all this covered in my earlier post...

 

1) this is not a vacation hide

My bad. I thought I read in here somewhere that Kansas Stasher lived a far piece away from Mingo.

But back to my earlier point, you are right. It really doesn't matter.

For the ammo can scenario listed above, the answers are the same if the can is 5 miles from home or 500.

If I accept your work, done on my behalf, either before the fact or after, you become my proxy.

 

2) proxy owners have to be set up in advance before vacation hides will be listed

That's also true. But also irrelevant, as you've pointed out.

In the above mentioned ammo can scenario, assume for debate's sake that I listed a local proxy.

Now assume you beat my proxy to the punch, replacing my can before s/he did

If I accept your replacement, you have become my proxy.

At least for that limited time.

 

The guidelines also specifically allow maintenance by proxy, where they address vacation hides.

That is not referring to just some random cacher that decided to help you out by throwing down a replacement container.

But they don't prohibit it either. See above scenario.

Are any of those first three scenarios violations of the guidelines?

The key here is if the cache owner accepts the throw down.

If they do, it becomes a maintenance visit by proxy.

If they don't, it remains a throw down.

(For the record, I am firmly on the "don't" side of the equation)

[knowschad]

But they don't prohibit it either. See above scenario.

Are any of those first three scenarios violations of the guidelines?

The key here is if the cache owner accepts the throw down.

If they do, it becomes a maintenance visit by proxy.

If they don't, it remains a throw down.

(For the record, I am firmly on the "don't" side of the equation)

Bah! Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud. Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy. It is ignoring your cache responsibilities.

[+jellis]

I know just adding to yours so others will hopefully understand I don't think Mingo will end well.

 

It's been not ending well for some time now.

 

Yeah, it is starting to remind me of the shootout scenes in some of the old westerns.

 

It appears that during the shootout a horse has taken a fatal shot.

 

(Soundtrack with jingling spurs and Lorne Greene singing, "Mingo... Johnny Mingo...". Fade to black... verrrrry slowly)

Doesn't even look like to many even are defending it anymore. So Hemlock when is this poor old horse going to be buried?

[+SwineFlew]

Something bad is coming.

[+jellis]

Though I doubt it. It may just stay this way for a long time. If it does I want to visit it before it dies.

I think I read someone important say. "only cachers make special caches" or something like that.

Caching is just a game. Like I tell muggles. No winners no losers, just fun.

[+DragonsWest]

Perhaps better cover for it would be something which looks like a memorial.

[+jellis]

not going to stop whoever has vandalized it 3 times in a row.

1)Dirt

2)industrial Foam

3)landscape mortar

[+DragonsWest]

not going to stop whoever has vandalized it 3 times in a row.

1)Dirt

2)industrial Foam

3)landscape mortar

 

Have to wait for them to grow out of it or grow up, eh?

[+jellis]

not going to stop whoever has vandalized it 3 times in a row.

1)Dirt

2)industrial Foam

3)landscape mortar

 

Have to wait for them to grow out of it or grow up, eh?

or the next time will be playdough

[Clan Riffster]

Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud.

I don't know Kansas Stasher personally. As such, I am not privy to what is occuring behind the scenes. I haven't looked at the listing in a while. You are obviously more invested in this cache than I am, judging by your passion to see it go away. What kind of on-line maintenance are you suggesting be done? Clear the NM attribute? Perhaps there is a reason he has not done so. I reckon the only ones who would be able to answer that are KS and the Reviewer in question.

 

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

 

Did either KS, or the {person} who spewed out the throwdown, violate the guidelines?

 

Edited to remove language

Edited March 8, 2012 by Skippermark

[knowschad]

Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud.

I don't know Kansas Stasher personally. As such, I am not privy to what is occuring behind the scenes. I haven't looked at the listing in a while. You are obviously more invested in this cache than I am, judging by your passion to see it go away. What kind of on-line maintenance are you suggesting be done? Clear the NM attribute? Perhaps there is a reason he has not done so. I reckon the only ones who would be able to answer that are KS and the Reviewer in question.

 

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

 

Did either KS, or the {person} who spewed out the throwdown, violate the guidelines?

 

Edited to remove language

 

I am probably much less involved and passionate about this than you are. I sure have posted less to the thread than you have.

 

What kind of online maintenance needs to be done? How about deleting the apparently bogus logs. The reviewer already stated that the throwdown is not the cache, yet people continue to log it, and those logs persist. As for physical maintenance, if Kansas Stasher really cared about this cache, regardless of what else is going on in his life, I'm sure he could have found somebody to actively fix it up for him.

 

So, are you claiming that throwdowns are OK? That they are all just cache maintenance by proxy? I don't see the difference here.

[+Castle Mischief]

Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud.

I don't know Kansas Stasher personally. As such, I am not privy to what is occuring behind the scenes. I haven't looked at the listing in a while. You are obviously more invested in this cache than I am, judging by your passion to see it go away. What kind of on-line maintenance are you suggesting be done? Clear the NM attribute? Perhaps there is a reason he has not done so. I reckon the only ones who would be able to answer that are KS and the Reviewer in question.

 

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

 

Did either KS, or the {person} who spewed out the throwdown, violate the guidelines?

 

Edited to remove language

 

Proxy maintenance is mentioned in the guidelines in relation to vacation caches- which I think you've already established that this isn't. But you've also allowed yourself the ultimate "out" by offering up the opinion that since it isn't mentioned in the guidelines it can't be a violation of the guidelines. Also you're not invested in the cache, but you're perfectly willing to build up a little shanty town of circular logic and loopholed thinking exercises in an effort to point out how anybody that thinks the guidelines should be applied to this cache is just plain old wrong.

 

So... arguing just to argue then?

[+jellis]

[+CanadianRockies]

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

A "proxy" is "a person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute." Are you seriously claiming that not protesting somebody's actions is the same as authorizing that person's actions?

 

One can argue that not removing a throwdown replacement is adequate maintenance. But even if I squint really, really hard, I can't see how this would be anybody's "textbook" definition of maintenance by proxy.

[knowschad]

perfectly willing to build up a little shanty town of circular logic

What a great figure of speech!!

[4wheelin_fool]

Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud.

I don't know Kansas Stasher personally. As such, I am not privy to what is occuring behind the scenes. I haven't looked at the listing in a while. You are obviously more invested in this cache than I am, judging by your passion to see it go away. What kind of on-line maintenance are you suggesting be done? Clear the NM attribute? Perhaps there is a reason he has not done so. I reckon the only ones who would be able to answer that are KS and the Reviewer in question.

 

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

 

Did either KS, or the {person} who spewed out the throwdown, violate the guidelines?

 

Edited to remove language

 

I am probably much less involved and passionate about this than you are. I sure have posted less to the thread than you have.

 

What kind of online maintenance needs to be done? How about deleting the apparently bogus logs. The reviewer already stated that the throwdown is not the cache, yet people continue to log it, and those logs persist. As for physical maintenance, if Kansas Stasher really cared about this cache, regardless of what else is going on in his life, I'm sure he could have found somebody to actively fix it up for him.

 

So, are you claiming that throwdowns are OK? That they are all just cache maintenance by proxy? I don't see the difference here.

 

 

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner.

[+GeoBain]

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner

 

Regardless, the size should be updated to reflect what actually exists.

[+jellis]

Cache owner isn't even doing online log maintenance, for cryin' out loud.

I don't know Kansas Stasher personally. As such, I am not privy to what is occuring behind the scenes. I haven't looked at the listing in a while. You are obviously more invested in this cache than I am, judging by your passion to see it go away. What kind of on-line maintenance are you suggesting be done? Clear the NM attribute? Perhaps there is a reason he has not done so. I reckon the only ones who would be able to answer that are KS and the Reviewer in question.

 

Passive acceptance of somebody's throwdown is not maintenance by proxy.

Of course it is. I would even argue that it is the textbook definition of maintenance by proxy. A proxy is someone who acts in your stead, doing the job you were supposed to do. Mingo went missing... again. As such, it needed to be replaced... again. Someone took it upon themselves to replace Mingo, presumably without discussing their decision with KS. At that point, KS had the option of accepting the dreaded throwdown, or vilifying it. I would have opted for the second choice myself, but KS did not. He let it ride.

 

Whoever spit out the throwdown became a proxy for KS.

 

Did either KS, or the {person} who spewed out the throwdown, violate the guidelines?

 

Edited to remove language

 

I am probably much less involved and passionate about this than you are. I sure have posted less to the thread than you have.

 

What kind of online maintenance needs to be done? How about deleting the apparently bogus logs. The reviewer already stated that the throwdown is not the cache, yet people continue to log it, and those logs persist. As for physical maintenance, if Kansas Stasher really cared about this cache, regardless of what else is going on in his life, I'm sure he could have found somebody to actively fix it up for him.

 

So, are you claiming that throwdowns are OK? That they are all just cache maintenance by proxy? I don't see the difference here.

 

 

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner.

think we went over this. It doesn't matter where the reviewer is from. They all have vested interest. And I also mentioned I am sure he has GC backing or his remarks would have been removed.

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner

 

Regardless, the size should be updated to reflect what actually exists.

 

Yes it should, but should it be archived if it doesn't?

 

Since someone has gone out of their way 3 times to steal the cache, they should cut the cache owner a little slack.

 

Applying the owner maintenance guideline rather strictly is only helping the cache maggot's goal.

[knowschad]

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner.

 

I don't know about that... we had a cacher around here at one time that was frequently using other cachers to do his maintenance, and the reviewer shut him down on that. Said that it was his responsibility to maintain his own caches.

[+jellis]

 

 

Since someone has gone out of their way 3 times to steal the cache, they should cut the cache owner a little slack.

 

Point made. It has been stolen 3 times and who's to say it won't again even with the bison or what ever it is this time. They may continue until the reviewers or CO decide it's not worth replacing.

[+GeoBain]

Regardless, the size should be updated to reflect what actually exists.

 

Yes it should, but should it be archived if it doesn't?

 

I don't know. But if the CO would at least take this simple step which can be performed from the comfort of his home then at least we could see if the reviewer's stance changes once the listing matches what is actually in place at ground zero.

[+Castle Mischief]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[+jellis]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

+1

[4wheelin_fool]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

 

I'm not understanding the fixation on whether the container was placed by the owner or someone else. The first time it went missing someone graciously replaced it with a replica that was pretty close to the original, but still there were those that got annoyed over it. There are geocachers that back each other up and help each other out also.

[knowschad]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

 

I'm not understanding the fixation on whether the container was placed by the owner or someone else. The first time it went missing someone graciously replaced it with a replica that was pretty close to the original, but still there were those that got annoyed over it. There are geocachers that back each other up and help each other out also.

 

The "fixation", if you will, is on whether or not the cache owner is doing his duty as a geocacher, not whether or not the container was placed by the cache owner. He hasn't even taken time to write a note in some time now, nor to change the container size on the cache page. Yes, we back each other up around here, but as a temporary measure.

[Trinity's Crew]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

 

I'm not understanding the fixation on whether the container was placed by the owner or someone else. The first time it went missing someone graciously replaced it with a replica that was pretty close to the original, but still there were those that got annoyed over it. There are geocachers that back each other up and help each other out also.

 

The "fixation", if you will, is on whether or not the cache owner is doing his duty as a geocacher, not whether or not the container was placed by the cache owner. He hasn't even taken time to write a note in some time now, nor to change the container size on the cache page. Yes, we back each other up around here, but as a temporary measure.

We don't know whether the CO is corresponding with the reviewer. It's been a while since I read the logs on the cache page but if I recall correctly it sounded like the nearby highway crew might have been responsible for the vandalism. Maybe they are still in the area and the CO is waiting for the coast to be clear.

[+GeoBain]

It's been a while since I read the logs on the cache page but if I recall correctly it sounded like the nearby highway crew might have been responsible for the vandalism. Maybe they are still in the area and the CO is waiting for the coast to be clear.

 

I doubt it. Had the CO actually taken that approach to begin with, MINGO might not be so close to being GONE OH.

[knowschad]

a reviewer from another area

 

I'm just not understanding the fixation on this. Reviewers back each other up and help each other out. Heck, some states don't even have their own reviewers and we have to share them with other states.

 

I'm not understanding the fixation on whether the container was placed by the owner or someone else. The first time it went missing someone graciously replaced it with a replica that was pretty close to the original, but still there were those that got annoyed over it. There are geocachers that back each other up and help each other out also.

 

The "fixation", if you will, is on whether or not the cache owner is doing his duty as a geocacher, not whether or not the container was placed by the cache owner. He hasn't even taken time to write a note in some time now, nor to change the container size on the cache page. Yes, we back each other up around here, but as a temporary measure.

We don't know whether the CO is corresponding with the reviewer.

 

That is true, but I somehow doubt it. Time will tell, I guess. We should start a pool!

[knowschad]

The cache (http://coord.info/GC1812D for those that haven't already figured it out) has been in place since Dec 2007. There is one other log about a cacher having a run-in with a land owner (6/24/11) but otherwise, the logs are positively glowing about the cache. I'm surprised that it only has 6 favorites, but that's probably because favorite votes haven't been around since 2007.

[+lamoracke]

The cache (http://coord.info/GC1812D for those that haven't already figured it out) has been in place since Dec 2007. There is one other log about a cacher having a run-in with a land owner (6/24/11) but otherwise, the logs are positively glowing about the cache. I'm surprised that it only has 6 favorites, but that's probably because favorite votes haven't been around since 2007.

 

wrong forum topic there knowschad. You meant the "Need some words of wisdom" topic I reckon.

[Clan Riffster]

I am probably much less involved and passionate about this than you are.

Can't tell that from here. You are certainly adamant about Mingo being archived.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I'll likely never go to Kansas to find it.

Though I do recognize its rather unique place in the history of this hobby.

 

What kind of online maintenance needs to be done?

How about deleting the apparently bogus logs.

 

From Websters:

 

Bogus

 

bo·gus adj \ˈbō-gəs\

 

1 ) not genuine

2 ) counterfeit

3 ) sham

 

Have you seen any bogus logs? If I find a cache at a set of coordinates, then log a "Found It" online, what part of that activity is bogus? Not finding the original container? Surely you are not advocating that caches cannot be replaced. Is finding a throwdown and posting an honest, accurate log to that effect bogus? Are there guidelines that prohibit claiming a find if all you manage to locate is the throwdown which the owner allowed to stay?

 

To repeat; If I drive to Kansas, pull over near N 39° 16.677 W 100° 56.621, follow my GPSr to those coordinates, locate a Bison tube there, sign the log, replace the cache, drive back to florida and post a log detailing exactly what I did, would that log be less than genuine? Would it be counterfiet? Would it be a sham? If the answer to those three questions is "No", I'm not sure how you could call my log bogus.

 

The reviewer already stated that the throwdown is not the cache

I thought Mingo was owned by Kansas Stasher, not the out of state Reviewer. I know I've replaced a few of my caches over the years. I've even had one of mine replaced by a friend before I could make the maintenance run. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with my Reviewer telling folks that the replacement was not the cache. That's a bit outside their authority, isn't it? Has said Reviewer/owner deleted the logs? Since he seems to be taking ownership of the cache, that's certainly within his rights as a cache owner. Or has the Reviewer let the 'bogus' logs stand, unmolested? If so, that speaks volumes. Perhaps Groundspeak doesn't think the logs are as 'bogus' as you do?

 

As for physical maintenance, if Kansas Stasher really cared...

Ahh... I see. The old, "Do it my way or you hate chilruns" debate tactic.

I gotta tell you, in a one on one debate, it's not very effective, as it is so easily countered.

In a public debate it's even less effective, as now the whole forum sees you as pulling facts out of thin air.

Neither you, nor I, know what, if anything, is going on behind the scenes.

Neither you, nor I, know if Kansas Stasher cares about this cache.

Presuming otherwise is... uh... presumptious.

 

I'm sure he could have found somebody to actively fix it up for him.

From here, it looks like he did...

Unless the throwdown just magically appeared...

The cache disappeared a few times.

It was replaced a few times.

I'm not sure any of the replacements were done with the owner's consent.

But all the replacements, including the latest, were allowed to stay unchallenged.

 

So, are you claiming that throwdowns are OK?

Should we review what I've had to say about throwdowns?

I've never had a reason to question your reading comprehension skills in the past.

Nor, am I willing to question them now.

I suspect that you just tossed that bit in there to continue your argument.

If you honestly don't know how I feel about throwdowns, here are a few parsed quotes you can study as clues:

"the dreaded throwdown

spit out the throwdown

spewed out the throwdown"

If you need further guidence, PM me.

 

That they are all just cache maintenance by proxy?

What I questioned was whether a throwdown, which is accepted by the CO, violtes the guidelines.

I've asked this several times. You still have not answered it.

I would honestly like to know. I'm no guidelines expert.

Can ya help a brother out?

 

As to the proxy part, in a perfect world, no caches would be replaced save with the explicit consent of the owner, given prior to the cache being replaced. However, in the real world, such is not always the case. The determining factor as to whether someone acts as a proxy for a cache owner is the cache owner's consent. This consent can be granted prior to the cache being replaced, or, it can be granted after the cache is replaced. Once it is granted, and the replacement is allowed to stand, the act of replacing it becomes maintenance by proxy.

 

...in an effort to point out how anybody that thinks the guidelines should be applied to this cache is just plain old wrong.

If you wish to discuss motive, I would ask that you make at least a token effort toward accuracy.

My recent efforts have been to discern if a throwdown, once accepted as a replacement by the cache owner, is a violation of the guidelines. Rather than receive answers to this perfectly reasonable and valid question, I've recieved straw men replies and convoluted debate tactics, given in a desperate attempt to prove that anyone who disagrees with the "Let's kill Mingo" crowd is just plain old wrong.

 

At no point have I suggested that Mingo should not adhere to the same guidelines as some Micro-Spew film can tossed out with several hundred of its peers along a mundane stretch of dessert highway. I'm just not seeing all the guideline violations that you seem to see. I think it's been disabled more than a reasonable amount of time, which would qualify as a violation, though I know exceptions to that can be made by communicating with the Reviewer. (Heck, I own a cache that stays disabled 3 months out of every 12) Since the Reviewer has not pulled the trigger on it yet, I wonder if there hasn't been some such communication? I really don't know. It's been my experience that when an area has an active Reviewer, and Groundspeak brings in someone from out of state to deal with one specific cache, there's a reason for that beyond just helping out with excess traffic. Could that reason include some sort of arrangement to which we are not privy? It's possible.

 

What other guideline violations has Mingo incured?

[Clan Riffster]

The cache owner decides if the throwdown is OK or not, because it is his cache. In this case, a reviewer from another area appears to have an undue vested interest in deciding whether or not it is OK.

 

Throwdowns are very bad when the cache owner does not want them. In many other cases, cache owners welcome them with open arms. This is why cachers persist in placing them. The problem is not with the throwdown itself, but with the action of placing it without the permission of the cache owner.

 

I don't know about that... we had a cacher around here at one time that was frequently using other cachers to do his maintenance, and the reviewer shut him down on that. Said that it was his responsibility to maintain his own caches.

Wasn't the Reviewer's stance in that instance predicated by complaints from those cachers who were seemingly expected to perform maintenance duties for the cache owner, and the cache owner's entitlement attitude in the forums once folks started grumbling about being expected to do said maintenance? That's the one I remember anyway. As I recall, the CO was spitting out several caches, using woefully inferior containers, then came on here whining because no one was fixing his hides. I'm not seeing that situation as being even remotely similar to Mingo. To date, no one who has performed maintenance on Mingo has complained about feeling like they were expected to do so. Rather, the attitude I sensed from the logs was one of conveying a favor to Kansas Stasher, and feeling a sense of accomplishment for having done so.

[+jellis]

 

Have you seen any bogus logs? If I find a cache at a set of coordinates, then log a "Found It" online, what part of that activity is bogus?

What other guideline violations has Mingo incured?

Have you checked 10/5/11? Two cachers posted finds on an empty hole in the ground. A bison was placed on 10/6/11

Edited March 10, 2012 by jellis

[knowschad]

The cache (http://coord.info/GC1812D for those that haven't already figured it out) has been in place since Dec 2007. There is one other log about a cacher having a run-in with a land owner (6/24/11) but otherwise, the logs are positively glowing about the cache. I'm surprised that it only has 6 favorites, but that's probably because favorite votes haven't been around since 2007.

 

wrong forum topic there knowschad. You meant the "Need some words of wisdom" topic I reckon.

 

Now, how did I go and do a stupid thing like that? It was a good post for the thread it was intended for, too. Rats.