Jump to content

Irritations aka "gripes"


The Posse

Recommended Posts

I think charter members are those with the most right to complain about PMO caches.

Regardless of the timeline, I would argue that, with roughly 80 bajillion non-PMO caches out there, no one has the right to complain about PMO caches. Unless someone is firmly entrenched in an entitlement rich fantasy land, expecting a steadily growing website's services to be provided for free, in perpetuity, is about as naive as it gets.

 

Nobody said there shouldn't be a payed, premium membership. The argument being made here has to do with PMO caches. A paid membership has plenty of other benefits without PMO caches.

But really, what is a PMO cache? I think non-PM's can find it and log it as such, can't they? I've just looked at a few logs from PMO caches and I see non-PM's logging finds.

Link to comment
But really, what is a PMO cache? I think non-PM's can find it and log it as such, can't they? I've just looked at a few logs from PMO caches and I see non-PM's logging finds.

They can log it if they know how, but they can't find it by themselves, because they won't see any coordinates (or even description). There's ways to figure out the approximate coordinates, but it's not exactly a straight forward approach.

Link to comment
The argument being made here has to do with PMO caches.

I know. My reply still stands. Creating and (easily) finding/logging PMO caches are two of the many benefits of a premium membership. Expecting all aspects of geocaching to be free, forever, is horribly naive, and a clear indication of someone with an entitlement mentality. Running a website costs money. Often, the bigger the website gets, the more it costs to run. Hence, the introduction of premium memberships... which led to PMO caches.

 

My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

Link to comment
My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

I agree. But I think that particular aspect of this discussion is largely irrelevant. To me, it doesn't matter why someone purchases a premium membership. Whether a player did so for PQs, (my biggest reason), or for any of the other reasons we've seen in this forum, whining about those folks choose to utilize their premium membership, when there are gobs of non-PM caches available, is an indication of way too much entitlement.

Link to comment
My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

I agree. But I think that particular aspect of this discussion is largely irrelevant. To me, it doesn't matter why someone purchases a premium membership. Whether a player did so for PQs, (my biggest reason), or for any of the other reasons we've seen in this forum, whining about those folks choose to utilize their premium membership, when there are gobs of non-PM caches available, is an indication of way too much entitlement.

 

Gawd, I hate that last word you used. The use of that one word just totally ruined your whole post for me. That word is so belittling... do diminishing... so discounting. In one word, it lumps people into a totally ignorable category. "They felt entitled." End of story.

 

I know that you feel entitled to use that word, but if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it. Hope I don't sound too entitled by asking for that.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel entitled to point out that Mr. Riffster is wholly entitled to use any terminology that applies to the situation.

Naturally, Mr. knowschad is certainly entitled to disagree with any particular opinion, but indeed there is no entitlement to take exception with said terminology unless it includes profanity.

 

What it comes down to is 'My entitlement is bigger than your entitlement.'

 

Not so, (at least at Geocaching.com) all entitlements are created equal!

Link to comment

Personally, I feel entitled to point out that Mr. Riffster is wholly entitled to use any terminology that applies to the situation.

Naturally, Mr. knowschad is certainly entitled to disagree with any particular opinion, but indeed there is no entitlement to take exception with said terminology unless it includes profanity.

 

What it comes down to is 'My entitlement is bigger than your entitlement.'

 

Not so, (at least at Geocaching.com) all entitlements are created equal!

 

Well, prom my poush!!

Link to comment
My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

I agree. But I think that particular aspect of this discussion is largely irrelevant. To me, it doesn't matter why someone purchases a premium membership. Whether a player did so for PQs, (my biggest reason), or for any of the other reasons we've seen in this forum, whining about those folks choose to utilize their premium membership, when there are gobs of non-PM caches available, is an indication of way too much entitlement.

 

Yeah, but it's always all about PMO's. The threads get started every two weeks because of PMO's. Imagine no one at Groundspeak ever thought of the idea, and they were never created. End of all freeloader entitlement threads. :P

Link to comment
My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

I agree. But I think that particular aspect of this discussion is largely irrelevant. To me, it doesn't matter why someone purchases a premium membership. Whether a player did so for PQs, (my biggest reason), or for any of the other reasons we've seen in this forum, whining about those folks choose to utilize their premium membership, when there are gobs of non-PM caches available, is an indication of way too much entitlement.

 

Yeah, but it's always all about PMO's. The threads get started every two weeks because of PMO's. Imagine no one at Groundspeak ever thought of the idea, and they were never created. End of all freeloader entitlement threads. :P

Good point. I can't recall a single instance of a thread complaining about those elitist pocket queries or elitist bookmark lists. Not even that elitist Off-Topic forum.

Link to comment
My point, if I wasn't clear, is that even without the ability to assign caches as PMO, that there would be plenty of other benefits. In fact, I can't think of one cacher I know that has signed up as a PM for the purpose of being able to create PMOs. Generally, it is so they can create pocket queries, more than any other reason. The next reason might be so they can FIND PMO caches, but not so much that they can hide PMO caches.

I agree. But I think that particular aspect of this discussion is largely irrelevant. To me, it doesn't matter why someone purchases a premium membership. Whether a player did so for PQs, (my biggest reason), or for any of the other reasons we've seen in this forum, whining about those folks choose to utilize their premium membership, when there are gobs of non-PM caches available, is an indication of way too much entitlement.

 

Yeah, but it's always all about PMO's. The threads get started every two weeks because of PMO's. Imagine no one at Groundspeak ever thought of the idea, and they were never created. End of all freeloader entitlement threads. :P

 

I doubt it. They would be complaining about PMs getting all the FTFs because we get Notifications.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel entitled to point out that Mr. Riffster is wholly entitled to use any terminology that applies to the situation.

Naturally, Mr. knowschad is certainly entitled to disagree with any particular opinion, but indeed there is no entitlement to take exception with said terminology unless it includes profanity.

 

What it comes down to is 'My entitlement is bigger than your entitlement.'

 

Not so, (at least at Geocaching.com) all entitlements are created equal!

 

Well I feel entitled. As a PM I feel that I am entitled to not have a 14yr old kid download a geocaching app to his phone and make a big spectacle out of finding my cache. Enough that he's the last one to log it.

 

I was a PM long before I hid my first cache. I hid about 140, all but 5 along mountain trails. The other 5 were in local urban parks, in discrete locations that shouldn't cause any notice. The urban caches started disappearing. I replaced each one three times and then gave up. Meanwhile, I hid a "match the surroundings" cammoed cache in plain sight of two major streets, made it PMO and 87 finds and 3 years later, it's still there, it's my most favorited cache.

 

I hid one that is in sight of my house, made it PMO, and almost five years and 87 finds later, it's still there.

 

Over the last six months, I have had some physical problems that have kept me off the trails. In that time, I have hid three urban PMO caches. They seem to be doing well.

 

My experience has shown me that PMO caches in a busy area makes the cache more secure. To test this, I am going to change one of my PMOs and see what happens. I'll report back.

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread. While I personally believe that those folks expressing entitled viewpoints should be the ones criticized, rather than those who point out their bad behavior, assigning a perfectly appropriate label to such behavior, I can also respect your wishes on the matter and seek a different word.

 

My favorite isogram is "lumberjack", probably due to my love of all things Monty Pythonish. Would that suffice?

 

As in, "The OP is displaying a lumberjacked attitude" or, "The OP is lumberjackie"... :P:lol:B)

Link to comment
The argument being made here has to do with PMO caches.

I know. My reply still stands. Creating and (easily) finding/logging PMO caches are two of the many benefits of a premium membership. Expecting all aspects of geocaching to be free, forever, is horribly naive, and a clear indication of someone with an entitlement mentality. Running a website costs money. Often, the bigger the website gets, the more it costs to run. Hence, the introduction of premium memberships... which led to PMO caches.

 

I have no beef in the argument. I suggest thinking outside the box! My geocaching stats and memberships are not solely from Groundspeak. As a premium member who has memberships in a number geocaching sites I plant competitor geocaches at and near the same locations as Groundspeak, and Groundspeak caches at the locations of their competitors. Yes, Groundspeak is a big boy on the block, but it's not the final word in geocaching; it's rules, guidelines and geocaches and PMO caches unfortunately don't extend to controlling competitor caches. Perhaps that should be a gold premium membership for that one. I'm for it! Then again, there's all these other free competitor caches that Groundspeak does not control that are sitting out on top of the premiums; and Premee cachers do not know about. Hmmmm! Need to charge more $$!

Edited by TorgtheViking
Link to comment
The argument being made here has to do with PMO caches.

I know. My reply still stands. Creating and (easily) finding/logging PMO caches are two of the many benefits of a premium membership. Expecting all aspects of geocaching to be free, forever, is horribly naive, and a clear indication of someone with an entitlement mentality. Running a website costs money. Often, the bigger the website gets, the more it costs to run. Hence, the introduction of premium memberships... which led to PMO caches.

 

I have no beef in the argument. I suggest thinking outside the box! My geocaching stats and memberships are not solely from Groundspeak. As a premium member who has memberships in a number geocaching sites I plant competitor geocaches at and near the same locations as Groundspeak, and Groundspeak caches at the locations of their competitors. Yes, Groundspeak is a big boy on the block, but it's not the final word in geocaching; it's rules, guidelines and geocaches and PMO caches unfortunately don't extend to controlling competitor caches. Perhaps that should be a gold premium membership for that one. I'm for it! Then again, there's all these other free competitor caches that Groundspeak does not control that are sitting out on top of the premiums; and Premee cachers do not know about. Hmmmm! Need to charge more $$!

 

And your point is?

Link to comment

Let's just agree that PMO caches are elitist and snub those that don't pay up, maybe if we don't pay attention to them they'll pony up the 9 cents a day so they can get attention again. Only reason these thread pop up each week is we snobs tend to enjoy humoring the lower class by responding to their threads.

Edited by [Roman]
Link to comment
' timestamp='1318228516' post='4862456']

Let's just agree that PMO caches are elitist and snub those that don't pay up, maybe if we don't pay attention to them they'll pony up the 9 cents a day so they can get attention again. Only reason these thread pop up each week is we snobs tend to enjoy humoring the lower class by responding to their threads.

 

I say decide to remove the option and you'll see people complain that they are trying to address problems. I repeat, address problems.

Link to comment

On a personal note, while a PMO may address various issues I'm still not clear how it adds anything to the game. Perhaps there was a reason when it was first offered.

 

I have to assume it wasn't first offered to prevent some sort of problem. Just a perk.

 

It adds a couple of my caches to the game. Not that that means anything. Seriously, I feel that these few caches would have been muggled by now, if not for their PMO status.

 

To be honest, the element/problem that I am trying to protect my caches from, really didn't exist when GS came up with the PMO idea, and since I was not a player at that time, I have no idea why they established it.

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. :D

 

Absolutely. And CR (or anyone else) is also entitled to appear to be decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person. I am simply pointing out that, to me, it does appear that way, and I don't generally see CR as that sort of person. He may not be aware that some others see him that way when he uses that phrase. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't care.

 

What was the topic? Oh yeah... Irratiations aka "gripes" :lol:

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. :D

 

Absolutely. And CR (or anyone else) is also entitled to appear to be decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person. I am simply pointing out that, to me, it does appear that way, and I don't generally see CR as that sort of person. He may not be aware that some others see him that way when he uses that phrase. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't care.

 

What was the topic? Oh yeah... Irratiations aka "gripes" :lol:

 

Your rant against the use of the word entitlement has to be a joke, right? I think, used in the right context, is a very powerful word. It's those on the receiving end that usually don't like it. :P

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. :D

 

Absolutely. And CR (or anyone else) is also entitled to appear to be decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person. I am simply pointing out that, to me, it does appear that way, and I don't generally see CR as that sort of person. He may not be aware that some others see him that way when he uses that phrase. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't care.

 

What was the topic? Oh yeah... Irratiations aka "gripes" :lol:

 

Your rant against the use of the word entitlement has to be a joke, right? I think, used in the right context, is a very powerful word. It's those on the receiving end that usually don't like it. :P

 

Absolutely NOT a joke, for the exact reason that you state. It is a bullying word, used to attempt to make your opponent look line a whiny and selfish crybaby, while you come out looking like somebody that would NEVER feel "entitled" to anything. It is designed to provoke.

Link to comment
if you can think of a better way of expressing yourself, I for one would sure appreciate it.

It seem the term "Entitlement" has become PC, judging by this thread.

Not PC at all. I'm a pretty non-PC kind of guy. I just find that the term is very decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. :D

 

Absolutely. And CR (or anyone else) is also entitled to appear to be decisive, provocative, and belittling of the other person. I am simply pointing out that, to me, it does appear that way, and I don't generally see CR as that sort of person. He may not be aware that some others see him that way when he uses that phrase. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't care.

 

What was the topic? Oh yeah... Irratiations aka "gripes" :lol:

 

Your rant against the use of the word entitlement has to be a joke, right? I think, used in the right context, is a very powerful word. It's those on the receiving end that usually don't like it. :P

 

Absolutely NOT a joke, for the exact reason that you state. It is a bullying word, used to attempt to make your opponent look line a whiny and selfish crybaby, while you come out looking like somebody that would NEVER feel "entitled" to anything. It is designed to provoke.

 

Very similar, by the way, to the common use of the word, "denial". I dare you to try to deny that you are in denial, just as you can never deny that you feel entitled to something. Both are catch 22 words used only to try to bully your opposition into submission. Both are very powerful, but very cheap weapons. If you need to resort to the use of either to make your point, you probably need to question if you even have a point.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Just a side note on the Premium Cache comments. I think it's just a matter of preference & situation. I've seen some premium onlys that I did not know why they were that way. I've also seen some in very high traffic areas hidden really well. In that case, I would assume the were marked this way, to be less likely muggled. Whether or not you have an opinion on paying for a membership, usually, a service somebody is paying for, they are less likely to use poorly; such as, a previous quote about some members "muggling" to be mean. I have set a few to this setting myself, more as a benefit. To bring Premium Members to a historical area I really enjoy, and want others to learn about, without drawing "too much" attention to it. Just some thoughts I had on that side-topic. Sorry for the lengthy synopsis.

Link to comment

I have only been caching for a few months but have seen this topic come up many times. I don't get it. I just don't see why people constantly have to complain about what a CO chooses to do with their cache. Pay the stinkin' 30 bucks and get over it already. If you really can't afford it then pay your 10 bucks for 3 months of PMO access, do the PMO caches, log them and then quit your griping!! Like I tell my kids, "If you want to do something about it then DO IT! If there is nothing you can do about it then stop wasting time worrying about something you cannot change!". :ph34r:

Edited by SmallsKC
Link to comment

I have only been caching for a few months but have seen this topic come up many times. I don't get it. I just don't see why people constantly have to complain about what a CO chooses to do with their cache. Pay the stinkin' 30 bucks and get over it already. If you really can't afford it then pay your 10 bucks for 3 months of PMO access, do the PMO caches, log them and then quit your griping!! Like I tell my kids, "If you want to do something about it then DO IT! If there is nothing you can do about it then stop wasting time worrying about something you cannot change!". :ph34r:

x2

Link to comment

I have only been caching for a few months but have seen this topic come up many times. I don't get it. I just don't see why people constantly have to complain about what a CO chooses to do with their cache. Pay the stinkin' 30 bucks and get over it already. If you really can't afford it then pay your 10 bucks for 3 months of PMO access, do the PMO caches, log them and then quit your griping!! Like I tell my kids, "If you want to do something about it then DO IT! If there is nothing you can do about it then stop wasting time worrying about something you cannot change!". :ph34r:

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

Link to comment

. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

 

I don't have an issue with non-PMs logging PMO caches. I'm a PM. My daughter sometimes comes with me; she wanted her own account; she is not a PM. If she happens to find a PMO cache with me then she logs it.

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

A can of worms, for sure. Regular members don't seem to mind PQ's for PM's only but when it comes to PMO caches, well that's another story. Why is "membership has it's privileges" hard to understand?

Link to comment

I have only been caching for a few months but have seen this topic come up many times. I don't get it. I just don't see why people constantly have to complain about what a CO chooses to do with their cache. Pay the stinkin' 30 bucks and get over it already. If you really can't afford it then pay your 10 bucks for 3 months of PMO access, do the PMO caches, log them and then quit your griping!! Like I tell my kids, "If you want to do something about it then DO IT! If there is nothing you can do about it then stop wasting time worrying about something you cannot change!". :ph34r:

 

:D

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

A can of worms, for sure. Regular members don't seem to mind PQ's for PM's only but when it comes to PMO caches, well that's another story. Why is "membership has it's privileges" hard to understand?

Since you asked, apparently what is hard for some people to understand is that it is perfectly fine for non-PMs to log 'PMO' caches. A non-PM is only restricted from viewing the PMO cache page, not from logging a legitimate find of the cache. I realize that it is a fine distinction and not one that is necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know the history of the situation, but there it is.

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

A can of worms, for sure. Regular members don't seem to mind PQ's for PM's only but when it comes to PMO caches, well that's another story. Why is "membership has it's privileges" hard to understand?

Since you asked, apparently what is hard for some people to understand is that it is perfectly fine for non-PMs to log 'PMO' caches. A non-PM is only restricted from viewing the PMO cache page, not from logging a legitimate find of the cache. I realize that it is a fine distinction and not one that is necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know the history of the situation, but there it is.

I only decided to add my 2₵ to this thread when I realized that a paid membership perk like downloading PQ's was "cut and dried", so to speak. Meaning, if your not a PM you can't download a PQ. But PMO caches are ambiguous and a little pointless because of it. GS elects not to make them really for PM's only and I was just curious why. Anyway, now that I have your attention, would you clarify something for me? If a member's profile says "Member" and not "Premium Member", could s/he still be a PM? What if the forum posts say PM but the profile doesn't? Thank you. :)

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

A can of worms, for sure. Regular members don't seem to mind PQ's for PM's only but when it comes to PMO caches, well that's another story. Why is "membership has it's privileges" hard to understand?

Since you asked, apparently what is hard for some people to understand is that it is perfectly fine for non-PMs to log 'PMO' caches. A non-PM is only restricted from viewing the PMO cache page, not from logging a legitimate find of the cache. I realize that it is a fine distinction and not one that is necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know the history of the situation, but there it is.

I only decided to add my 2₵ to this thread when I realized that a paid membership perk like downloading PQ's was "cut and dried", so to speak. Meaning, if your not a PM you can't download a PQ. But PMO caches are ambiguous and a little pointless because of it. GS elects not to make them really for PM's only and I was just curious why. Anyway, now that I have your attention, would you clarify something for me? If a member's profile says "Member" and not "Premium Member", could s/he still be a PM? What if the forum posts say PM but the profile doesn't? Thank you. :)

The reason a non-PM can log a PMO cache is very simple, because Jeremy said so. He, in the early days of geocaching, stated that geocaching will always be free. Therefore members are not restricted in logging the PMO, just seeing the coordinates, description and hints. Groundspeak takes care to make sure the "backdoor" is always open and will in fact re-instate a members log that was deleted by a PM on a PMO. The PM is also told not to do that anymore. Think a family that is out caching, only one is a PM and the kids and mom/dad are not PM, but the PM has the listing. Why shouldn't all of them not be allowed to log the find?

Link to comment

 

I agree with you, as well. One thing that bothers me about PMO caches is that they should be for PM's only, but they're not. Check the logs yourself and you'll see non-PM's logging the finds (newbies, too). So what's the point? Maybe PM's who choose to have a PMO cache should be empowered to delete non-PM logs. I don't own any PMO caches myself but, since GS offers the choice, those who choose to establish one should have a little more power to control who "sees" it and who logs it without upsetting regular members. Regular members should see this as a paid membership privilege and not be envious of it.

So some one pays up for a short PM, logs the caches in their area, lets the PM lapse, PMO owner checks the profile... Basic Member! and deletes the finds -that were legitimate at the time of logging?

 

Worms. Can of. Large! :laughing:

A can of worms, for sure. Regular members don't seem to mind PQ's for PM's only but when it comes to PMO caches, well that's another story. Why is "membership has it's privileges" hard to understand?

Since you asked, apparently what is hard for some people to understand is that it is perfectly fine for non-PMs to log 'PMO' caches. A non-PM is only restricted from viewing the PMO cache page, not from logging a legitimate find of the cache. I realize that it is a fine distinction and not one that is necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know the history of the situation, but there it is.

I only decided to add my 2₵ to this thread when I realized that a paid membership perk like downloading PQ's was "cut and dried", so to speak. Meaning, if your not a PM you can't download a PQ. But PMO caches are ambiguous and a little pointless because of it. GS elects not to make them really for PM's only and I was just curious why. Anyway, now that I have your attention, would you clarify something for me? If a member's profile says "Member" and not "Premium Member", could s/he still be a PM? What if the forum posts say PM but the profile doesn't? Thank you. :)

The reason a non-PM can log a PMO cache is very simple, because Jeremy said so. He, in the early days of geocaching, stated that geocaching will always be free. Therefore members are not restricted in logging the PMO, just seeing the coordinates, description and hints. Groundspeak takes care to make sure the "backdoor" is always open and will in fact re-instate a members log that was deleted by a PM on a PMO. The PM is also told not to do that anymore. Think a family that is out caching, only one is a PM and the kids and mom/dad are not PM, but the PM has the listing. Why shouldn't all of them not be allowed to log the find?

Alright. That's a reasonable answer, thank you. Sometimes I think, though, that if a parent told their kids that only a Premium Member could log a certain cache, they just might say, "Okay Dad, we understand".

Link to comment

Alright. That's a reasonable answer, thank you. Sometimes I think, though, that if a parent told their kids that only a Premium Member could log a certain cache, they just might say, "Okay Dad, we understand".

"No, son, you can't have that candy bar. Put it back"

"Okay Dad, I understand"

 

Never heard that one before.

Link to comment

Still at this, are we?

 

Please wake me up if and when someone actually addresses a new angle to this tired topic. Until then, y'all feel free to continue to rehash the debate. (You're entitled to do so, after all.)

Yo! Hzoi!! Wake up... we're approaching it from a candy bar angle now. I'll bet you've never seen that done before!

Link to comment

Still at this, are we?

 

Please wake me up if and when someone actually addresses a new angle to this tired topic. Until then, y'all feel free to continue to rehash the debate. (You're entitled to do so, after all.)

Yeah. You're right. Let's put this one to bed. Think I'll call my buddy Glen Fiddich and chat for awhile.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Anyway, now that I have your attention, would you clarify something for me? If a member's profile says "Member" and not "Premium Member", could s/he still be a PM? What if the forum posts say PM but the profile doesn't? Thank you. :)
If the member's profile states that he/she is a 'member', then he/she is not a PM. However, he/she may have been a PM yesterday and may be a PM tomorrow. Further, TPTB may, at a later date, backdate his/her membership to make him/her a PM today. The designation in the forums may or may not be correct.

 

Must be wednsday..........

OK, I give up, why must it be Wednesday?
The ongoing joke is that certain topics come up with such frequency that you can schedule them on teh calendar.
Link to comment

Still at this, are we?

 

Please wake me up if and when someone actually addresses a new angle to this tired topic. Until then, y'all feel free to continue to rehash the debate. (You're entitled to do so, after all.)

Yo! Hzoi!! Wake up... we're approaching it from a candy bar angle now. I'll bet you've never seen that done before!

 

*grunts*

 

*rolls over*

 

*goes back to sleep*

Link to comment
It is a bullying word, used to attempt to make your opponent look line a whiny and selfish crybaby

Thankfully, in this thread, the referenced individual in question took care of making himself look like a whiny and selfish crybaby, so I don't need to use such a provocative word to describe him. Hence, the phrase transference to "Lumberjack". Unless you've got a better term to describe whiny and selfish behavior? I'm all ears... (though I am kinda attached to Lumberjack) :ph34r:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...