Jump to content

Too Many Rules, Too Many Bureaucrats


MastahMatt

Recommended Posts

If your goal is to encourage people to try benchmarking, then have you considered creating a challenge cache that requires people to find 25 (or 50 or 100) benchmarks?

There are already quite a few quantity-based benchmarking challenges in MastahMatt's area (it's my area too).

You just said a mouthful!! :lol:

 

Just take a look at SparkyFry's St. Paul cluster, not to mention so many others! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=40861821-1835-4e11-b666-8d41064d03fe&lat=44.944033&lng=-93.133900

 

Knowschad, I specifically wanted to avoid yet another quantity challenge, which, to beat the dead horse, are a dime a dozen. Thus I created the challenge at issue here requiring only a single benchmark. The reason behind the FTF requirement was simple: requiring an individual to find "a benchmark" would have meant that popular benchmarks in the Twin Cities here would have just be logged yet again. My goal was to make an adventure out of this, to get other people out to find benchmarks that hadn't yet been located. In other words, to break new ground. There are LOTS of benchmarks out there to find that haven't been logged, but the only way to encourage people to find them was through a FTF requirement.

 

Furthermore, it defeats the purpose if people can simply log a benchmark without a picture. Since no one 'polices' these things, obviously, it would be easy for a cheater (and there are MANY cheaters whatever you want to believe about the integrity of humanity) to simply log a benchmark as found when no such thing had been done. Also, how do I determine whether they logged a reset mark by accident, or a replacement mark.

 

So hopefully you see my point. These were not arbitrary requirements foisted upon a naive and helpless population of cachers who need protection from my dangerous challenge, but instead an attempt to create a worthy task for anyone willing to try something new for a couple of hours. But apparently the (minority?) have spoken, and the other minority (me?) is out of luck.

 

*sigh*

Link to comment
IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER

 

I'm pretty sure this is what the "previous finder requirement" problem is.

 

The FTF issue is because you're delineating whether their benchmark log is allowed based on whether they were FTF on that benchmark.

 

I'm pretty sure photos as an ALR has been disallowed for non-Virtual caches since before I started caching in 2010; even Earthcaches can't require them as of early 2011.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them. Examples

Find a twenty-five caches, each representing a different geographic location that you can find somewhere on the Hawaiian Islands

That's no problem for the islanders or even visitors of the islands but the final is not out there but here in California.

Or

find 1 cache with "Bear" in the title in a minimum of 10 different States/Provinces/Countries

or

The total distance between your finds, in the order you found them, must be greater than 240,000 miles, the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

and recently someone tried to take revenge on those difficult type of ?Challenges by creating one that sounds simple but is almost impossible for some of us.

His requirement is to log that Challenge as your Milestone cache. Simple? Yes if you have low numbers. Because he requires you to use the Milestone on your GC Profile. So if you have 214 finds your next milestone is 300, if it's 1000 then it's 2000. Like me, 20K next is 30K. Well what about 50K? It's 100K

On some of these they will hardly get any finds. Maybe the next cacher who completes it the cache maybe gone or archived. You just did all that work for nothing (well you may have had fun doing it)

 

But for the OP of this..Let's see both FTF and Benchmarks aren't really recognized through GC. They don't show up on your counts. And ALRs are ALRs. Not sure but I believe that was added because like Virtuals, it got out of control. On Earthcaches and Virtuals I believe they should stay because of lack of proof. But to require ALRs for anything else No.

Link to comment
the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?'

 

Well, this is Groundspeak's website so they technically have the right to restrict what's listed here based on whatever whim they want.

 

But why ban things like FTFs or ALRs? I think one of the previous comments hit the nail on the head: resources. They don't want to deal with Finders and COs arguing over whether an ALR was met or not and whether the Finder's log should be deleted or restored. They don't want to deal with possibly unprovable arguments over who's name was on the logsheet first or how to handle co-FTFs.

 

You could say "Let the Reviewers judge if it is reasonable", but then you're...

1) asking for arbitrary judgements where people will cry sour grapes

2) causing the Reviewers alot of grief on quality control which is one reason we have no Virtuals

 

This is the same sort of reason why agendas are banned: so nobody has to decide which agendas are okay.

 

The blanket bans can sometimes be frustrating, but I think they're for the betterment of the game.

Link to comment

So I tried to post a new Challenge cache today.... not the new and rather shallow "Challenge" garbage geocaching.com is attempting to force us to swallow, but an actual cache that requires a specific task be completed. Here is the text (much of it anyhow) for that challenge I wanted to create:

 

--------------------

"To complete this challenge, you must have a single FIRST TO FIND of ANY BENCHMARK in the United States that can currently be found on geocaching.com (look here). The benchmark must have NO LOGS BEFORE YOURS and you MUST take a picture of the benchmark and post it on your log to prove that you were there. Due to the varying nature benchmarks, I will *try* to be lenient when it comes to the picture, however, blurry pictures which make it impossible to see the mark in question - and I've seen a few like this - will disqualify you from this challenge. Cameras are ubiquitous. If you have a cell phone from 1863 and your camera sucks, borrow a camera from someone, or upgrade that beast. I will be reasonable, but a picture of a watertower a mile away will not qualify.

 

The flipside to this picture requirement is as follows: if you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as unfound for the purposes of this challenge. What this means is that if YOU go out and get a picture of said benchmark, that will qualify as a FTF for you, assuming that you post a picture yourself.

 

NOTE (PLEASE READ!): PREVIOUS FINDS *WILL* COUNT BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT TWIST. PREVIOUS FINDS WILL ONLY QUALIFY YOU AFTER THREE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO GO OUT AND GET FTF ON ANOTHER BENCHMARK TO QUALIFY. THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE AT FTF, STF, AND TTF."

--------------------

 

There are hundreds of thousands of benchmarks on geocaching.com, giving everyone the chance to complete this with very little effort.

 

Here is what I received from the reviewer: FTF's are no nonger allowed (a contest), Requiring the posting pictures no longer allowed (Additional logging requirement) , the previous find requirement cannot be included.

 

So basically this challenge is out the window. The first requirement makes it pointless, the second means there is NO WAY to prove anyone has ever been to a benchmark, and I am not ENTIRELY clear here, but I think the third means I can't tell someone they have to find a benchmark in order to find this one.

 

THESE NEW "RULES" NEED TO BE ELIMINATED. Here is why:

 

We have become the absolute WORST KIND of democracy here at geocaching.com. There was a story written a few years ago by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. In this story, which takes place in the near future, everyone was required to be equal, to the point where those with better hearing had to wear earphones that blasted sound into their ears and those who were faster had to carry weights in order to be 'equal' to the least "gifted" person in their society. It was the desire for 'equality' taken to extremes.

 

How does this apply to my (formerly) beloved site? The idea behind these new rules seems to be that *someone, somewhere* might not be able to qualify for this one. A contest? My cache is a contest in a sense, yes, only hundreds of thousands of people would be able to qualify, and gee, that's not fair now is it, because there are technically six billion people in the world.

 

The new, crappy challenge type - which I from time to time engage in in the hope that I'll start enjoying it - REQUIRES a photo by its very nature. There is no difference between that and this. It seems to be a transparent effort on the part of the geocaching.com staff to force us to "migrate" to the new challenge type. Therefore we are now forbidden from requiring photos on caches in order to prevent mystery cache-based challenges from being created.

 

I do not desire that the new challenge type be eliminated. It's a fun diversion, but it DOES NOT INVOLVE GEOCACHING, and thus holds little interest for me.

 

I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that soon there will be a requirement that caches cannot be in trees, or underwater. Perhaps the well-meaning bureaucracy that is slowly taking over GC HQ will decide that someone might break some tree branches, or another bureaucrat in some state will require that no caches be allowed in lakes, because, hey, lakes are for fish, not people and we can't have people going in lakes where they wouldn't normally go, so GC will suggest a new rule banning underwater caches... you know... for the habitat, oh, and because someone might not know how to swim and that wouldn't be fair to them, thus making this a contest for them.

 

I will not deny that I am furious about this. I have spent the past several months fulfilling "pointless" geocaching challenges and having a spectacularly good time because it's a personal high to me to complete an esoteric, difficult challenge. Now I see that many of those challenges that I absolutely loved are never going to be allowed here again because the bureaucrats over at GC HQ decided on some new "rules" without consulting anyone but their own high-minded personal ideals.

 

This is a "feature request" in the sense that I am requesting these rules be removed, or at least heavily amended. I joined up here with the idea that I could contribute to the community in my own way, as long as it didn't involve illegal or highly dangerous, suspect activity. Why am I being restricted? Why the ridiculous "requirements" GC? Why are you FORCING me to make sure that everyone else has fun YOUR way, when this is fun MY way and for many others who feel as I do? It seems in your efforts to please everyone, all the time, you have made me very angry to the point of protest, so somewhere you may have failed.

 

My desire to post this challenge and it's refusal is indicative of a *much* greater problem than it appears on the surface. Rules are now being made for the sake of rules AT THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION, and this, in my mind is absolutely, 100% unacceptable.

 

I will have MUCH more to say about this, if not on the forums necessarily, then in person, and at every meeting I decide to attend in the future.

 

I have over 4,500 cache finds recorded on this site. Because of that, I can't simply "give up caching here" though if there were a way to save my stats, I would do so. Therefore, in protest for what I feel is an undue burden upon my hobby, I am doing the following: I will NOT post a single new cache or challenge on geocaching.com until I feel there is an effort to revamp these rules. Rules covering illegal and/or highly suspect activity (i.e. caches on railroad tracks or under highway bridges) are just fine for me to follow. Rules for the sake of rules are a big problem for me. I've got enough bureaucrats trying to up my taxes and impose curfews and tell me how often I need to mow my lawn and shovel my driveway. I don't need bureaucrats telling me I can't post a picture or first-to-find requirement. I will be posting my new caches on other geocaching sites from this point forward.

 

Thank you for listening. I don't like the new bureaucratic and rules for the sake of rules driven trends, but also, thank you for the GOOD things you have accomplished.

tozainamboku's summary

 

"My cache was rejected. The guidelines are unfair."

 

I wrote a lengthy response but once it got as long as the OP, I realized all I said was "The guidelines are unfair. Your cache was rejected".

 

The truth is that every time Groundspeak adds to the guidelines some good ideas are prevented. I believe Groundspeak knows this and is reluctant to make changes. They do so only because there are specific problems than can't be easily dealt with otherwise. There were several attempts to deal with "bad" ALR caches and allow "good" or fun ALRs. Ultimately the decision was to ban all ALRs except for geocaching related challenge caches. However even here there were people proposing bad ideas so what is allowed in a challenge was further restricted.

 

Without commenting on whether the OP's idea for a FTF benchmark challenge is good idea for challenge or not, I can say it clearly violates several guidelines that were put in place because there were challenges where owners exercise too much control where they deleted logs over technicalities or difference in interpretation of the requirements. Groundspeak was called upon to settle disputes between cache owners and finders who felt the had done the challenge. Essentially challenges can no longer require certain elements because these could be easily abused. Not all challenge owners that asked for photo or required a "FTF" abused this privilege, but some did and the guidelines were changed so that these (and other) components can not be part of the challenge.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?'

 

Every organization as well as society in general has the right to restrict activity. In the world you see people could use drugs, assault others and generally damage all others around them and you would think it was ok because they had no right to restrict what you do. Basically you are advocating anarchy.

 

I wasn't going to respond anymore, but I couldn't let this one go. Really? If you read some of the posts above I made about this issue (a lengthy proposition, I understand) you would have seen where I repeatedly state that illegal activity restrictions are absolutely acceptable. What isn't, to me, are restrictions on my activity based on someone's dislike of the way I cache.

 

A society has the right to restrict activity... I agree with this when it comes to said society protecting itself from harm. "Damage to others" is operative here. My geocache challenge suggestion does not "damage others". Instead, some people get angry because they can't (or don't want) to complete a challenge a certain way, and they PERCEIVE this as damage to themselves, and thus worthy of a new rule or restriction.

 

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it, as long as it doesn't involve illegal or highly suspect activity?' Since I'd already said this multiple times, I figured repeating myself would have been pointless. I guess not.

 

But in any case, I am glad, Walts, that you feel that the restrictions in place protect you from my challenge cache, which would damage you if it wasn't otherwise restricted. Well played!

You keep harping on being restricted because someone doesn't like your way of caching - baloney! You haven't given one shred of evidence that is the case. You come across sounding like a child - "I'm not getting my way - waaa!" and "you can't tell me how/what to do, you're not my daddy/mommy!" Well, two things - 1. life's not fair, you don't always get everything you want, deal with it. 2. It's their website, so they are the "parents".

 

As to it not "damaging others" - how would you like to be a reviewer who gets messages like your first post all the time? It can be very hard on a person to be called names (you didn't directly call anyone a name, but implied - some of the emails reviewers get aren't so general) or receive threats. They say it takes something like 10-14 positive comments to offset one negitive comment, so by subjecting reviewers to the FTF "wars" you would be 'harming' them.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?' my feeling is that most people will avoid this question because there is no answer that will not make them look like a tool.

 

I think the question has been answered and it didn't make anyone look like a tool. While I agree with you that having this cache exist on geocaching.com wouldn't ruin anyone elses fun and for those who would want to qualify for the cache, it would be a nice diversion. However, you seem intent on trying to bash a square peg into a round hole. Groundspeak has made it clear that your challenge, in its present form, is not allowed on their site.

 

Groundspeak has every right to make up any arbitrary rule it wants to. It doesn't matter if that rule is created to help them run their day to day business with the least amount of stress, or if it was created because unforeseen issues arise and they have to fix the problem or if it was created because Jeremy's pictures were ruined at the photomat and now he's against requiring pictures/ALR's. This is their private company and they get to set the standards. Geocache wise, you have no "right" to anything beyond what their guidelines allow if you want your cache published. If you do not agree with those guidelines/rule, you have options. You can adhere to their guidelines and get your cache published, even if it's a shell of the challenge you had envisioned. Or you can hide your cache and dictate to others what they must do to qualify to find it but it won't be listed here.

 

Personally, I'm on your side in that I wish there was more flexibility in the guidelines but I believe one of the reasons there is not is that geocaching (and geocaching.com in particular) has really become far more of a success than expected and in the last few years, the numbers have exploded. If GS would allow hiders to tweak the guidelines here or there or to add wrinkles, the review process would be overwhelmed. Simply put, Groundspeak is outmanned and they know it. They have to have an almost zero-tolerance stance when it comes to the guidelines or they'd have no volunteer reviewers...they'd all quit within a few weeks. That's not even taking into consideration the mediating GS would have to do between owners and cachers whenever a dispute would arise. And they would arise. Often. There just isn't the resources available to allow flexibility.

Link to comment

No one is restricting your right to geocache, or restricting the kinds of geocaches you may place. You may do anything that's legal, as you've pointed out. You can tell your friends about it. You can start a website and post about it.

 

Groundspeak is restricting the types of caches they are willing to list, and as a business, they have that right. One would assume they are using those rules to protect the quality, integrity, and reputation OF THE BUSINESS, which in many cases (but not all) would be the same as protecting the hobby. If they saw challenges getting out of control, and reducing the quality of cache placements, and increasing the frustration level of their user base, they'd have two option. Use moderation to restrict specific caches, which would get them into a tight position of judgement based review, or put rules in place that can be applied with reasonably objectivity. They've always seemed to lean toward the latter whenever possible.

 

Now an unfortunate side affect of this is while it does limit the problem-causing caches, it can also limit caches that may have been positive ones. The same is true of virtually any generic rule created by a business. But apparently, the overall impact is positive in Groundspeak's opinion, as the rules stay in place.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses. If it was Groundspeak's decision to ban ALR's because they themselves were sick of dealing with complaints, then so be it. In that case, I feel Groundspeak should have simply removed themselves from such local discussions and instead of saying "No, you can't have a cache like this, if you want it, work with the reviewer," they should have said, "No, we won't undelete your log, work with the cache owner to make it happen." Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner is deleting logs for the heck of it is one thing. Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner deleting a log due to a challenge requirement not being met (ridiculous or non-ridiculous), while attractive so that "justice may be served" should have been avoided on their part. But perhaps that is a discussion for a different thread :)

 

As an aside, I read one of your quotes, specifically the last one: "Mark my words, power trails will ultimately have a negative impact on this sport." I think this is truly apropos to this situation. Allow me to state this:

 

"Mark my words, bureaucracy will ultimately have a negative impact on this sport." Bureaucracy always involves the best intentions of those making the rules. When you try to micro-legislate behavior, you end up with at best a bunch of rule-breakers, and at worst, apathy.

Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

That has been FAR from my experience! They march to their own drummer... believe me!

Link to comment

Groundspeak does what they want, when they want. They act nimbly and respond to user demand only when their dominant position in the marketplace is threatened. For instance, we got lots of nice, useful updates when Opencaching.com was launched.

 

They also act quickly when their free labor force is up in arms. From what I've read, the reviewers were in open revolt at the tail-end of the Virtual days.

 

With no real competition and no trouble finding reviewers (at least around here), they really don't have any reason to listen. It's not like we're going to take our $30/year away, and even if we do, there are tons of new people (who know nothing about Groundspeak's history) signing up every day.

Link to comment
As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

 

If you say so. That hasn't been my observation though.

 

The masses (actually, only a small percentage): "Bring back Virtuals!"

 

Groundspeak: "Here ya go... http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/ "

 

:huh:

 

The masses: "Bring back country based souvenirs"

 

Groundspeak: (silence)

 

:(

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

That has been FAR from my experience! They march to their own drummer... believe me!

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.
If you say so. That hasn't been my observation though.

 

Groundspeak does what they want, when they want. They act nimbly and respond to user demand only when their dominant position in the marketplace is threatened. For instance, we got lots of nice, useful updates when Opencaching.com was launched.

 

They also act quickly when their free labor force is up in arms. From what I've read, the reviewers were in open revolt at the tail-end of the Virtual days.

 

With no real competition and no trouble finding reviewers (at least around here), they really don't have any reason to listen. It's not like we're going to take our $30/year away, and even if we do, there are tons of new people (who know nothing about Groundspeak's history) signing up every day.

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

 

If you say so. That hasn't been my observation though.

 

The masses (actually, only a small percentage): "Bring back Virtuals!"

 

Groundspeak: "Here ya go... http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/ "

 

:huh:

 

The masses: "Bring back country based souvenirs"

 

Groundspeak: (silence)

 

:(

 

 

B.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

Ok people, point taken. Since this thread is past the point of dead horse, I'm moving on, for real this time. Here's to hoping Groundspeak makes *wise* decisions in the future, and perhaps undoes *unwise* decisions as well.

Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

 

As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses. If it was Groundspeak's decision to ban ALR's because they themselves were sick of dealing with complaints, then so be it. In that case, I feel Groundspeak should have simply removed themselves from such local discussions and instead of saying "No, you can't have a cache like this, if you want it, work with the reviewer," they should have said, "No, we won't undelete your log, work with the cache owner to make it happen." Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner is deleting logs for the heck of it is one thing. Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner deleting a log due to a challenge requirement not being met (ridiculous or non-ridiculous), while attractive so that "justice may be served" should have been avoided on their part. But perhaps that is a discussion for a different thread :)

 

As an aside, I read one of your quotes, specifically the last one: "Mark my words, power trails will ultimately have a negative impact on this sport." I think this is truly apropos to this situation. Allow me to state this:

 

"Mark my words, bureaucracy will ultimately have a negative impact on this sport." Bureaucracy always involves the best intentions of those making the rules. When you try to micro-legislate behavior, you end up with at best a bunch of rule-breakers, and at worst, apathy.

Instead of trying to move the mule why don't you just go to OC and do what you want there.

Link to comment

I love Challenge Caches. And I love the idea of Geocaching Challenges and have enjoyed a few. Not only that, but I love finding benchmarks. Being FTF on a benchmark was one of my proudest "geocaching" moments. (That said, I don't enjoy logging benchmarks, so you'll not find many in my profile)

 

Now, I am quite capable of ignoring things I do not enjoy. And like you, I'm all for others having freedom to do things that I can simply ignore. (I'll spare you the speech about business owners also having this freedom)

 

Here's the thing:

Rules define the boundaries. Sure, it is sometimes frustrating when we believe the rules should be different. But playing by the rules is the only way to keep it fun. And while rules can be evaluated and improved over time, there's a right way to go about it. (not sure this is it)

 

Oh, and if Groundspeak is actually hearing your opinion in this venue, then this might be a good place to say that I appreciate the rules that apply in this case.

 

This looks like a good place to jump in.

 

The rules that exclude the cache in question didn't just happen. Most of them evolved because for some reason, Geocachers have a desire to push everything to the limits and sometimes beyond. Eliminating the date range on qualifiers is because people were creating challenges that were specifically designed to exclude certain types of cachers, cachers that had a different idea of how to play the game then that of the challenge hider. Requiring photos? I really don't know the origins and if I had to guess I would say that people were complaining about privacy, but it far precludes the newer rules on challenges. Except for grandfathered virtuals and webcam caches, a cache owner has not been allowed to require a photo for some years now. FTF, benchmark or not, Groundspeak is not going to have anything to do with FTF. It is a side game being played by a subset of users who can't even decide what rules to use amongst themselves. It is not officially recognized on the website as there is no way to truly know who is FTF. The first to log is not necessarily the first to find.

 

I understand the OP's argument about a true democracy and how dangerous that can be, but I don't see it in this case. Instead I see it more as a Wild West situation evolving into a civilized one.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?'

 

It seems like you want to have all the rights, but not the people who actually own this website.

 

Its their website, you have to play by their rules. Deal with it.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?' my feeling is that most people will avoid this question because there is no answer that will not make them look like a tool. The other side issue is that geocaching.com is definitely moving toward a state of mediocre bureaucracy - something that most of us in the modern world should be gradually and sadly becoming familiar with and something that every single one of us without exception should fear as we would fear an invading army bent on our complete destruction. I do not say this lightly. If nothing else, bureaucracy will be the end of geocaching using this site as we know it. Though I absolutely cannot wave it about as any sort of "proof", I have had SEVERAL people tell me via private email and on the phone that I am NOT alone in this along with the caveat that posting it here is a worthless endeavor. I don't agree with that last part, so here I am. Take that as you will, but it is simple truth.

 

As one would expect, I have cooled down quite a bit from my earlier emotional state. I will put the excellent suggestions of Isonzo Karst into practice and perhaps I can get something of the original spirit of the cache into play. But I seriously chafe at the idea of others making rules curtailing my freedom to cache the way I want to cache. Though I appreciate the friendly and thoughtful responses of almost everyone here, I am still going to be putting most if not all of my future caches into play through a different medium than geocaching.com. I will not say where in this forum because I don't want it to appear that I am advertising for anyone else, but suffice to say that simply swallowing the status quo and continuing as things were because it has recently become the status quo is unacceptable to me. Therefore I must move elsewhere when I can and when it is practical to do so. If the individuals who complained loudly in order to create this sad state of affairs had simply accepted their own status quo, we would not be having this discussion, I would be caching how I want to cache, and you would simply be ignoring me if you didn't like my challenges. That seems like the way it should be to me.

 

Thanks all, and I can only hope this discussion will make even one other person think before they decide to impose more bureaucracy on us all.

 

I though that Rush Limbaugh cached in Florida?

Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them. Examples

Find a twenty-five caches, each representing a different geographic location that you can find somewhere on the Hawaiian Islands

That's no problem for the islanders or even visitors of the islands but the final is not out there but here in California.

Or

find 1 cache with "Bear" in the title in a minimum of 10 different States/Provinces/Countries

or

The total distance between your finds, in the order you found them, must be greater than 240,000 miles, the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

and recently someone tried to take revenge on those difficult type of ?Challenges by creating one that sounds simple but is almost impossible for some of us.

His requirement is to log that Challenge as your Milestone cache. Simple? Yes if you have low numbers. Because he requires you to use the Milestone on your GC Profile. So if you have 214 finds your next milestone is 300, if it's 1000 then it's 2000. Like me, 20K next is 30K. Well what about 50K? It's 100K

On some of these they will hardly get any finds. Maybe the next cacher who completes it the cache maybe gone or archived. You just did all that work for nothing (well you may have had fun doing it)

 

But for the OP of this..Let's see both FTF and Benchmarks aren't really recognized through GC. They don't show up on your counts. And ALRs are ALRs. Not sure but I believe that was added because like Virtuals, it got out of control. On Earthcaches and Virtuals I believe they should stay because of lack of proof. But to require ALRs for anything else No.

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

Link to comment
As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

 

That is false. I'd say a large majority would like to see virtuals return. It took GS years to give in and try to create a comprimise (challenges). A large majority still claim those are not what they want and they want the ghost icon back now. If GS was a bureaucracy we'd still have old school virtuals.

Link to comment

.......... One would assume they are using those rules to protect the quality, integrity, and reputation OF THE BUSINESS, which in many cases (but not all) would be the same as protecting the hobby. If they saw challenges getting out of control, and reducing the quality of cache placements, and increasing the frustration level of their user base, they'd have two option. Use moderation to restrict specific caches, which would get them into a tight position of judgement based review, or put rules in place that can be applied with reasonably objectivity. They've always seemed to lean toward the latter whenever possible.

 

Now an unfortunate side affect of this is while it does limit the problem-causing caches, it can also limit caches that may have been positive ones. The same is true of virtually any generic rule created by a business. But apparently, the overall impact is positive in Groundspeak's opinion, as the rules stay in place.

 

 

 

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy. ...........

 

 

I agree with the above. Heaven knows what would happen to this hobby if Groundspeak didnt have rules. The media and the police would have a more negative statements about private property, pipe bombs, caches under bridges and overpasses, or on railroad property or on playground equipment,etc.

 

I can live with having rules because there are too many people out there who dont know how to use common sense.

Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them. Examples

Find a twenty-five caches, each representing a different geographic location that you can find somewhere on the Hawaiian Islands

That's no problem for the islanders or even visitors of the islands but the final is not out there but here in California.

Or

find 1 cache with "Bear" in the title in a minimum of 10 different States/Provinces/Countries

or

The total distance between your finds, in the order you found them, must be greater than 240,000 miles, the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

and recently someone tried to take revenge on those difficult type of ?Challenges by creating one that sounds simple but is almost impossible for some of us.

His requirement is to log that Challenge as your Milestone cache. Simple? Yes if you have low numbers. Because he requires you to use the Milestone on your GC Profile. So if you have 214 finds your next milestone is 300, if it's 1000 then it's 2000. Like me, 20K next is 30K. Well what about 50K? It's 100K

On some of these they will hardly get any finds. Maybe the next cacher who completes it the cache maybe gone or archived. You just did all that work for nothing (well you may have had fun doing it)

 

But for the OP of this..Let's see both FTF and Benchmarks aren't really recognized through GC. They don't show up on your counts. And ALRs are ALRs. Not sure but I believe that was added because like Virtuals, it got out of control. On Earthcaches and Virtuals I believe they should stay because of lack of proof. But to require ALRs for anything else No.

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

Were these challenge caches published prior to the 3/20/12 change to the specific Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it

 

Matt,

 

You continue to ask, "what gives US the right" and "because WE don't like it". You need to rephrase that to "What gives Groundspeak the right" and "because Groundspeak doesn't like it" and I think you will have your answer. But as long as you continue to believe that it is other cacher's preferences that have caused these restrictions in place, it will go unanswered.

 

But it is US and WE. groundspeek doesn't make the rules for the heck of it. They get tired of US and WE complaining because US and WE continue to push the envelope more and more until US and WE complain to THEY and THEM until THEY make some more rules to shut US and WE up.

 

I've said before that this entire enterprise hinges on the trust and respect of all involved. I think that when this game got started and new cachers came aboard due to word of mouth, there was more respect for our fellow cachers. If you join a club because a friend invited you, then you generally take care to uphold certain standards.

 

But as more and more people join the club with no personal ties, there is less and less incentive to play nice or respect other members. We forget that we only get to play this because of respect for hiders, finders, and land owners equally.

 

Hiders start pushing the envelope. They get controlling. Finders don't respect caches. They open them in the rain. They drain all the swag. Neither pay much mind to the land owner.

 

So someone has to step in and make some attempt to restore some balance to the game. But THEY are running a business and it costs to have people manning the phones or answering emails. So instead of dealing with individual problems, THEY just make blanket rules. But it often feels like those blanket rules come from the complaints of a few and clearly do not reflect the wishes of the many.

 

So, really what gives anyone the right to restrict how others play the game is the fact that there are a bunch of babies playing this game that don't know how to play nicely with one another, don't know how to ignore stuff they don't like, and whine incessently to groundspeek because they don't think life is fair.

Link to comment

 

Finders don't respect caches. They open them in the rain. They drain all the swag. Neither pay much mind to the land owner.

 

agree with some of what you said, but not opening caches in the rain? Well, there goes my caching plans tomorrow morning if that was the case. I just try to open and sign them as quick as possible. I do not let rain stop me.

Link to comment

Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner is deleting logs for the heck of it is one thing. Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner deleting a log due to a challenge requirement not being met (ridiculous or non-ridiculous), while attractive so that "justice may be served" should have been avoided on their part.

 

IMHO, both are equally just as bad. groudspeek should have never started mediating log disputes at all. What they should have done, again this is MY opinion, was remove the stupid find count in order to discourage people treating it like some kind of score, remove the ability to remove logs, and take action against any players abusing the logs such as spamming, etc.

 

That is greatly simplified and would never work as stated. But I stand behind the general idea. Because the find count is what fuels most of this angst.

 

If people treated the found logs simply as records of which caches they've found, then there would not be a lot of incentive to delete logs because someone didn't stand on one foot and hop in a circle or find 50 caches started with the letter X. There are too many other methods of keeping up with your finds for that to make much difference. But as long as hiders can affect someone's "score" there are lots of incentives to control other people's fun.

Link to comment

 

Finders don't respect caches. They open them in the rain. They drain all the swag. Neither pay much mind to the land owner.

 

agree with some of what you said, but not opening caches in the rain? Well, there goes my caching plans tomorrow morning if that was the case. I just try to open and sign them as quick as possible. I do not let rain stop me.

Same here. No rain is going to stop me. If it did, I wont be caching most of the year. :ph34r:

Link to comment

If people treated the found logs simply as records of which caches they've found, then there would not be a lot of incentive to delete logs because someone didn't stand on one foot and hop in a circle or find 50 caches started with the letter X. There are too many other methods of keeping up with your finds for that to make much difference. But as long as hiders can affect someone's "score" there are lots of incentives to control other people's fun.

 

However, whether you or I like it, geocaching.com would more than likely went the way of Buxley, terracaching, Waymarking and other defunct or near defunct sites without the find count. People in general are just competitive in nature, be it against others or themselves.

 

Those "numbers" next to peoples handles is the number one feature that sells PM, whether it shows up on a survey or not.

Link to comment

 

Finders don't respect caches. They open them in the rain. They drain all the swag. Neither pay much mind to the land owner.

 

agree with some of what you said, but not opening caches in the rain? Well, there goes my caching plans tomorrow morning if that was the case. I just try to open and sign them as quick as possible. I do not let rain stop me.

 

Guess I should have been more clear; "They open them in the rain and let the rain pour inside." Even the most watertight container is no match when someone opens it in the rain and makes no effort to keep the rain out. And allowing a cache to become soaked because you can't be bothered to cover it or take it to your car or just wait until it's not raining is disrespectful to the cache owner.

Link to comment

So I tried to post a new Challenge cache today.... <snip>

 

Okay, first.

I have not read this whole thread yet, but if you show up and start up with a rant then you're not going to make people really eager to get on your side. It's hard to get on the side of someone ranting.

 

Next: what you're saying doesn't make sense. This should not be surprising since you seem pretty mad. Is it the Chinese who have a saying, something like, "Make someone stupid, make them mad"? Someone can correct me on the exact wording on that if you like. People don't think clearly when angry.

 

Okay, so you state:

"THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE" yet you're complaining about Groundspeak wanting to make everyone on equal footing.

And what you're doing does the opposite of putting everyone on equal footing (making past finds not usable until 3 people have found the cache). So you say you want to, complain that GS wants to, and then you do the opposite. Not making sense to me.

 

You stated:

"We have become the absolute WORST KIND of democracy here at geocaching.com."

Okay, well geocaching.com is not a democracy, so it can't be any kind of a democracy. It's a business. A company. As consumers of it's product, we can give input to what we want, but it's not our decision to make.

 

Actually I like it this way. The few rules they've made I tend to like. I think they're doing a pretty good job.

 

You reference Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s book to explain your standing up for inequality. That makes no sense either. Caches are not all created equal for everyone to get. There are caches on the top of mountains and at the bottom of the sea. There are boat caches; everyone doesn't have access to a boat. There are a lot of inequalities. The rule you quote isn't about that at all. It's about creating a playing field. You can't have a game where the rules change every cache. You've got to draw a line somewhere. This isn't an anarchy. That is where they drew one of the lines defining the game. They've got to have lines for game definition. In that way we all need to be equal. It's like everyone starting the Monopoly game at the "Start." Then everyone having equal opportunity to buy property. There have to be certain rules defining the game. It's not about everyone being on equal footing but about everyone playing by the same rules. You've got to have rules to have a game. Does this make any sense?

 

I could go on responding line for line, but the bottom line to me is that you created something that didn't follow the rules so you want them to change the rules for you.

Life just doesn't work that way, and neither does geocaching.

 

The rules are very well thought over and I agree with them.

They don't create rules arbitrarily. They put a whole lot of thought into these rules. I think they do a great job. It can't be easy, but there's a lot of wisdom behind what they decide.

 

If it were a democracy, the rules would still not change when one person wanted them to for their cache.

 

 

I love challenge caches (the old style).

I hope people who rant about them isn't going to cause their extinction. Geocaching.com doesn't seem to be really fond of them already.

Let's just play by the few rules they have and appreciate that they allow them, even though they do not follow the ALR rules. They could easily decide there is too much drama and argument around them and disallow them altogether. Please don't ruin it for the rest of us. And yourself, as you seem to like them too.

Link to comment

Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner is deleting logs for the heck of it is one thing. Groundspeak mediating because a cache owner deleting a log due to a challenge requirement not being met (ridiculous or non-ridiculous), while attractive so that "justice may be served" should have been avoided on their part.

 

IMHO, both are equally just as bad. groudspeek should have never started mediating log disputes at all. What they should have done, again this is MY opinion, was remove the stupid find count in order to discourage people treating it like some kind of score, remove the ability to remove logs, and take action against any players abusing the logs such as spamming, etc.

 

That is greatly simplified and would never work as stated. But I stand behind the general idea. Because the find count is what fuels most of this angst.

 

If people treated the found logs simply as records of which caches they've found, then there would not be a lot of incentive to delete logs because someone didn't stand on one foot and hop in a circle or find 50 caches started with the letter X. There are too many other methods of keeping up with your finds for that to make much difference. But as long as hiders can affect someone's "score" there are lots of incentives to control other people's fun.

 

While I'm sure this is true for a lot of people, I really don't care if my count is 5645 or 5644. What I do care about is if I have found a cache, I want it counted. I don't want it not counted because I did the wrong chicken dance in my video. If there were no numbers, I would still want it on record that I found that cache.

Link to comment
As I said above, knowschad, Groundspeak moves with the masses, or at least the most vocal "part" of the masses.

 

That is false. I'd say a large majority would like to see virtuals return. It took GS years to give in and try to create a comprimise (challenges). A large majority still claim those are not what they want and they want the ghost icon back now. If GS was a bureaucracy we'd still have old school virtuals.

 

I agree with this. The large majority of Geocachers want old-school virtuals to return. These forums are not the large majority of Geocachers. They're a bunch of grumpy old farts like myself. :laughing: Less than 20% of registered accounts have ever even once looked at the forums. They don't register you as a forum member until you look at them for the first time.

 

By the way, from the OP:

 

 

I have over 4,500 cache finds recorded on this site. Because of that, I can't simply "give up caching here" though if there were a way to save my stats, I would do so. Therefore, in protest for what I feel is an undue burden upon my hobby, I am doing the following: I will NOT post a single new cache or challenge on geocaching.com until I feel there is an effort to revamp these rules. Rules covering illegal and/or highly suspect activity (i.e. caches on railroad tracks or under highway bridges) are just fine for me to follow. Rules for the sake of rules are a big problem for me. I've got enough bureaucrats trying to up my taxes and impose curfews and tell me how often I need to mow my lawn and shovel my driveway. I don't need bureaucrats telling me I can't post a picture or first-to-find requirement. I will be posting my new caches on other geocaching sites from this point forward.

 

I'd say who cares about your 4,500 finds stats? But we know that isn't reality, and most people do care. I'll tell you what though, start listing them elsewhere, and no one will care. They get a couple vocal people a year going on a rant and doing that, and that's about it. I've never left here, and never am going to. But I joined Navicache in early 2004 (a few months after I started), and all the others over the years (except Garmin), and am currently a strong supporter of another alternative that was created in 2010. These sites are not a threat, never have been, and never will be. And I've listed about the same on alternatives as I have here (about 50 apiece). Don't bother, no one will join your protest. Not that I was protesting, I just did it because I'm an alternative type of guy. :blink:

Link to comment

 

Finders don't respect caches. They open them in the rain. They drain all the swag. Neither pay much mind to the land owner.

 

agree with some of what you said, but not opening caches in the rain? Well, there goes my caching plans tomorrow morning if that was the case. I just try to open and sign them as quick as possible. I do not let rain stop me.

 

Guess I should have been more clear; "They open them in the rain and let the rain pour inside." Even the most watertight container is no match when someone opens it in the rain and makes no effort to keep the rain out. And allowing a cache to become soaked because you can't be bothered to cover it or take it to your car or just wait until it's not raining is disrespectful to the cache owner.

 

I figured that is what you meant. :) I just thought it was funny to read that when I saw my weather forecast was for rain tomorrow morning and am going to be in a park or two.

Link to comment

My post from the now closed thread in 'Feature Discussions':

 

There are several challenge caches I would like to create, but the guidelines forbid them.

So, I work within the framework of what is allowed.

 

Groundspeak has allowed the 'Challenge Cache' type to continue to exist on the basis of the restrictions now in place. Without these restrictions, mayhem would almost certainly ensue.

 

Experience has proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that there is a segment of the geocaching population that will take ALR requirements WAY beyond what is fair and reasonable if there are not such 'severe' restrictions as we have now.

 

While I am certainly a believer in 'if you don't like it, don't look for it', things were getting out of hand.

In the worst example I am aware of, 'finders' were required to post pictures of a dead animal carcass. How is that related to geocaching? While I might find the series of pictures interesting as the carcass decays and disappears, most people don't want to be taking pictures of maggots crawling around.

 

I would certainly enjoy your FTF benchmark challenge, and would have qualified hundreds of times over.

Too bad the people who created those nasty ALR caches spoiled it for the rest of us.

Link to comment

I could say, past finds don't count (maybe that's not allowed anymore though)...

It's too bad the OP has left this discussion, because I have some advice for them (and it goes for everyone else, too):

Read the guidelines before submitting your cache. It will avoid a lot of potential grief. The quoted statement above says to me that you either didn't read them, or just skimmed. That one, and the "no FTF" one, are mentioned in the Challenge Cache guidelines here.

Link to comment

I recently became interested in challenge caches and started placing a few of my own. It didn't take long to find out that the guidelines had changed, i believe in February, and that there were more restrictions in place now. It was definitely disappointing since i put in some time and effort on a couple that i wanted to put out but that were then rejected. Before someone asks this,, i did read the cache submission guidelines but didn't know that there were separate guidelines for these as they are hard, at least for me, to find on the website. Either way, i agree with MastahMatt in that i feel there are too many guidelines on placement of these caches these days.

 

It shouldn't really matter if a date restriction, or a requiring of a person to be ftf on a certain cache or benchmark, or a bingo type setup where a person has to find certain caches, is in place. Yea, i suppose they may not be possible for all cachers to complete but that shouldn't matter. Kinda like a traditional cache placed on a side of a mountain where only a few can ever get to it. There will always be caches out there that not everyone can complete.

 

Also, and the way i figure it, the additional guidelines can only add more work for reviewers who have to familiarize themselves with them and scrutinize every cache submission even more. It just doesn't make any sense to me to have all the restrictive guidelines these days.

Link to comment

Geocaching isn't supposed to be a competition. Some cachers might want to make more of that aspect than others do, but Groundspeak is pretty clear on this.

Almost anyone who wants to can get to that mountainside cache. Some might not be able to due to physical limitations.

Being FTF on a cache or benchmark is a competition, and not something that can even be verified using the stats or tools on this website. Finding caches to complete a challenge that are not available any longer means that newer cachers cannot use those to complete challenges.

And with regard to the reviewer workload-it's quite likely that they had some input into the new guidelines to simplify their jobs.

Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them. Examples

Find a twenty-five caches, each representing a different geographic location that you can find somewhere on the Hawaiian Islands

That's no problem for the islanders or even visitors of the islands but the final is not out there but here in California.

Or

find 1 cache with "Bear" in the title in a minimum of 10 different States/Provinces/Countries

or

The total distance between your finds, in the order you found them, must be greater than 240,000 miles, the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

and recently someone tried to take revenge on those difficult type of ?Challenges by creating one that sounds simple but is almost impossible for some of us.

His requirement is to log that Challenge as your Milestone cache. Simple? Yes if you have low numbers. Because he requires you to use the Milestone on your GC Profile. So if you have 214 finds your next milestone is 300, if it's 1000 then it's 2000. Like me, 20K next is 30K. Well what about 50K? It's 100K

On some of these they will hardly get any finds. Maybe the next cacher who completes it the cache maybe gone or archived. You just did all that work for nothing (well you may have had fun doing it)

 

But for the OP of this..Let's see both FTF and Benchmarks aren't really recognized through GC. They don't show up on your counts. And ALRs are ALRs. Not sure but I believe that was added because like Virtuals, it got out of control. On Earthcaches and Virtuals I believe they should stay because of lack of proof. But to require ALRs for anything else No.

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

Were these challenge caches published prior to the 3/20/12 change to the specific Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

 

B.

The island one before the other two after

Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

Link to comment

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

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...