cache policing is just bullying

January 2, 2013

It has come up again Bulling why is it people think they have the right to bully other cachers

If the cache is rubbish well so be it every one has to start some were, if a cache is wet or damp have you seen the weather replace the log if its on a big series(if you have one with you)5 cachers have archived caches and series of caches in the last few months because of this person,

With cache owners saying (quote) I am not the first cache setter he has upset and archived caches because of his attitude towards them. and another when people start getting personal or insulting, especially in their logs...

I know we all think we are the cache police from time to time and I have done it my self but this is starting to go to far

So my question is who at Groundspeak do you report this to??

8.6k · January 2, 2013

It has come up again Bulling why is it people think they have the right to bully other cachers

If the cache is rubbish well so be it every one has to start some were, if a cache is wet or damp have you seen the weather replace the log if its on a big series(if you have one with you)5 cachers have archived caches and series of caches in the last few months because of this person,

With cache owners saying (quote) I am not the first cache setter he has upset and archived caches because of his attitude towards them. and another when people start getting personal or insulting, especially in their logs...

I know we all think we are the cache police from time to time and I have done it my self but this is starting to go to far

So my question is who at Groundspeak do you report this to??

Details here: Reporting abusive posts or correspondence.

MrsB

January 2, 2013

It has come up again Bulling why is it people think they have the right to bully other cachers

If the cache is rubbish well so be it every one has to start some were, if a cache is wet or damp have you seen the weather replace the log if its on a big series(if you have one with you)5 cachers have archived caches and series of caches in the last few months because of this person,

With cache owners saying (quote) I am not the first cache setter he has upset and archived caches because of his attitude towards them. and another when people start getting personal or insulting, especially in their logs...

I know we all think we are the cache police from time to time and I have done it my self but this is starting to go to far

So my question is who at Groundspeak do you report this to??

Thank you I will forward on

Details here: Reporting abusive posts or correspondence.

MrsB

January 3, 2013

Um, do you mean me?

If not, strange coincidence I filed a needs archived on the first and shortly got a friend request from you, when I don't think we've met before.

And if it's about that cache, GC354Y5, there may be stuff you don't know - like the owner was banned from these forums a year ago (I believe) and since then has refused to do any maintenance resulting in a lot of disappointed cachers and forced archives from the reviewer. That one has outstanding requests going back to april with no response and I wasn't the first to say it needed archiving.

A NA log is there to alert the reviewer to a situation, it has no other weight. My NA logs are there for anyone to review, there are 11 of them since I started and in every case, the reviewer has agreed and archived an abandoned cache, as per the rules. I invite comment from more experienced cachers in each case.

I stand by this log and if it /is/ me you're talking about, are you not guilty of bullying yourself, or do you not understand the system?

If it's not me (and I don't think I've ever been personal or insulting in my logs!), quite interested in who you do mean, because reporting an abandoned cache is in my view a very good thing.

Edited January 3, 2013 by dartymoor

3.7k · January 3, 2013

If not, strange coincidence I filed a needs archived on the first and shortly got a friend request from you, when I don't think we've met before.

And if it's about that cache, GC354Y5, there may be stuff you don't know - like the owner was banned from these forums a year ago (I believe) and since then has refused to do any maintenance resulting in a lot of disappointed cachers and forced archives from the reviewer. That one has outstanding requests going back to april with no response and I wasn't the first to say it needed archiving.

As so often in these situations it's a little difficult to work out what's going on. I can't find any logs by dartymoor on the 1st of Jan and I don't know why he's offended about receiving a friend request. A quick scan through Bazzer's caches didn't turn up any obvious bullying in logs.

GC354Y5 looks to be abandoned, but then again it's just a micro and I'm surprised that someone hasn't simply replaced the log, considering that it's obvious before you set out that this is all it needs; in fact I'd take a new container as well as a new log. It's only a very simple geocache, it doesn't really matter whether it has an owner or not. Dartymoor - when you visited to post the NA didn't it occur to you that it would have been as easy to reinstate the cache? Or did you post a NA without ever visiting (poor etiquette)?

3.3k · January 3, 2013

If not, strange coincidence I filed a needs archived on the first and shortly got a friend request from you, when I don't think we've met before.

And if it's about that cache, GC354Y5, there may be stuff you don't know - like the owner was banned from these forums a year ago (I believe) and since then has refused to do any maintenance resulting in a lot of disappointed cachers and forced archives from the reviewer. That one has outstanding requests going back to april with no response and I wasn't the first to say it needed archiving.

As so often in these situations it's a little difficult to work out what's going on. I can't find any logs by dartymoor on the 1st of Jan and I don't know why he's offended about receiving a friend request. A quick scan through Bazzer's caches didn't turn up any obvious bullying in logs.

GC354Y5 looks to be abandoned, but then again it's just a micro and I'm surprised that someone hasn't simply replaced the log, considering that it's obvious before you set out that this is all it needs; in fact I'd take a new container as well as a new log. It's only a very simple geocache, it doesn't really matter whether it has an owner or not. Dartymoor - when you visited to post the NA didn't it occur to you that it would have been as easy to reinstate the cache? Or did you post a NA without ever visiting (poor etiquette)?

If a CO doesn't maintain their caches the best thing to do is have them archived so someone else who will maintain it can put a new one there. Otherwise there's no way of removing the NM attribute and it propagates the message there's no need to maintain caches because someone else will do it for you. There's quite a difference between a little bit of cache maintenance to help out a cacher who is still active but would otherwise have to make a special trip to a cache to put a new piece of paper in it, and keeping something going after the owner has long since abandoned it.

6.1k · January 3, 2013

FWIW I don't think the incident(s) which prompted Bazzer to post on here are anything to do with dartymoor, I think it's to do with some stuff that's been going on in the Hampshire Berkshire area.

January 3, 2013

Maybe I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, and apologise and will be embarrassed if so. It just seemed a very odd coincidence (Not offended by a friend request btw, but it's coincidental these three things line up!)

Happy Humphrey - *Is* it poor ettiquette to file a NA on a cache without visiting it? I wasn't aware of that if it's so. I watch my local caches quite closely and know of some of the background. I'm not sure why it's poor form to highlight that to the reviewer who can then choose to ignore my report. (A few ignored ones would soon stop me of trying to help prevent cachers going to a cache and causing more NM logs, and they might not be aware of the history of the CO. IMO, a lot of people are overly cautious of raising a NA resulting in an obviously abandoned cache like this causing disappointment for dozens of cachers over a very long period. Caches like that are bad for our reputation as a group and the system is there to deal with it, which includes cachers alerting reviewers to abandoned.

tsiri - yes, agree. In fact I started a thread asking that very question in here not that long ago. I do maintain caches where appropriate, but have stopped doing so if the owner has abandoned it.

3.7k · January 3, 2013

Happy Humphrey - *Is* it poor ettiquette to file a NA on a cache without visiting it? I wasn't aware of that if it's so. I watch my local caches quite closely and know of some of the background. I'm not sure why it's poor form to highlight that to the reviewer who can then choose to ignore my report. (A few ignored ones would soon stop me of trying to help prevent cachers going to a cache and causing more NM logs, and they might not be aware of the history of the CO. IMO, a lot of people are overly cautious of raising a NA resulting in an obviously abandoned cache like this causing disappointment for dozens of cachers over a very long period. Caches like that are bad for our reputation as a group and the system is there to deal with it, which includes cachers alerting reviewers to abandoned.

There is more than one school of thought on this, so perhaps I should have said that I consider it poor etiquette, rather than inferring that it's accepted as such. The reason I think this, is that without visiting you can't take a view on the cache situation, only what other people have claimed; so it's secondhand information. This makes you look like an interfering busybody (I'm not saying that you are, just that it will give this impression), as there appears to be no reason for you to take such an interest in a cache that you haven't even looked for. I'd expect a NA to be accompanied by a DNF; after all, if the cache was found and log signed there's no reason to archive it.

It's a fair point from Team Tisri that if the owner seems to have abandoned a cache and it's barely viable then it should be cleared away, but personally I don't care whether anyone officially "owns" a cache or not so I don't mind whether it's maintained by the original owner or by a sympathetic local cacher (or even by a muggle). It's only a cache, not a historic monument. In the case in question it's not clear that the CO has given up on maintenance, just that they aren't very good at it.

It is a grey area though. I feel that if a cache can't be found at all and the owner is inactive then a NA is fine (again, I'd expect someone to go and look before raising it). If someone judges that the cache is abandoned, is in a really poor state, and is taking up a valuable spot that could be used by an active cacher, then I can see that they'd be justified in disposing of the remnants and raising the NA (after logging a DNF, on the basis that they didn't find a viable cache).

The reason I take an interest is that I recently found a cache that was in perfect order, but when I went to log it online I discovered that since I uploaded it to my GPSr it'd been archived on the basis of a NA (after a couple of DNFs and no owner response). Then I noticed a few other caches that I knew about had received NA's (due to damp log books) from someone who'd clearly never been near them, and felt that the likely outcome was that the CO (well known for being very slow in maintaining caches) would get offended and give up. A good way to end up with numerous viable caches lying about abandoned for no good reason. In the latter case a Needs Maintenance log from a finder would have sufficed.

January 3, 2013

Maybe I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, and apologise and will be embarrassed if so. It just seemed a very odd coincidence (Not offended by a friend request btw, but it's coincidental these three things line up!)

Happy Humphrey - *Is* it poor ettiquette to file a NA on a cache without visiting it? I wasn't aware of that if it's so. I watch my local caches quite closely and know of some of the background. I'm not sure why it's poor form to highlight that to the reviewer who can then choose to ignore my report. (A few ignored ones would soon stop me of trying to help prevent cachers going to a cache and causing more NM logs, and they might not be aware of the history of the CO. IMO, a lot of people are overly cautious of raising a NA resulting in an obviously abandoned cache like this causing disappointment for dozens of cachers over a very long period. Caches like that are bad for our reputation as a group and the system is there to deal with it, which includes cachers alerting reviewers to abandoned.

tsiri - yes, agree. In fact I started a thread asking that very question in here not that long ago. I do maintain caches where appropriate, but have stopped doing so if the owner has abandoned it.

Personally, I don't think it is poor etiquette to file a NA on a cache without visiting it and HH knows this because we have discussed it before. However, HH did have a point and make me think. As a result of the last time this was thrashed out, On most occasions, once archived, I now make a trip to the cache site and remove the container...if I can find it :laughing: .

This is all a bit secret squirrel for me but perhaps if a little more careful detail were given, we could help the OP more?

3.3k · January 3, 2013

There is more than one school of thought on this, so perhaps I should have said that I consider it poor etiquette, rather than inferring that it's accepted as such. The reason I think this, is that without visiting you can't take a view on the cache situation, only what other people have claimed; so it's secondhand information. This makes you look like an interfering busybody (I'm not saying that you are, just that it will give this impression), as there appears to be no reason for you to take such an interest in a cache that you haven't even looked for. I'd expect a NA to be accompanied by a DNF; after all, if the cache was found and log signed there's no reason to archive it.

It's a fair point from Team Tisri that if the owner seems to have abandoned a cache and it's barely viable then it should be cleared away, but personally I don't care whether anyone officially "owns" a cache or not so I don't mind whether it's maintained by the original owner or by a sympathetic local cacher (or even by a muggle). It's only a cache, not a historic monument. In the case in question it's not clear that the CO has given up on maintenance, just that they aren't very good at it.

In some ways I don't care who maintains a cache as long as it is maintained although I personally find it irritating to look for a cache only to find it clearly hasn't been looked after, or when a cache isn't there and hasn't been marked as disabled despite a string of DNFs going back many months. As such if a cache isn't maintained my own view is that it should be archived.

As I see it, informal maintenance of a cache by others can easily just propagate the message that placing caches is the end of the responsibility of ownership because someone else will look after them. It also helps propagate a message that if the cache doesn't seem to be there then it's perfectly OK to throw down another cache and claim it, which in turn can result in multiple caches in the same location. I recall reading at least once in here about someone having to make a trip out to their cache to remove a "throw down" cache someone had placed - they hadn't found it so assumed it wasn't there and replaced it. The trouble was the original was still there, just well hidden.

My view is that if a cache has a string of NM logs and the owner hasn't taken any action then it's perfectly fair game for anyone to log NA against the cache whether they've visited it or not. A string of NM logs with no corresponding maintenance by the cache owner says that the owner isn't maintaining the cache, and so it should be archived. If someone logs NM because the log is wet and another cacher replaces the log in response there's no reason why the owner can't log "Owner Maintenance" and refer to the other log to show that the maintenance has been carried out.

Unfortunately when cache owners don't maintain their caches the only way to get them disabled is to alert a reviewer and the NA log seems to be the best way of doing this.

January 3, 2013

Unfortunately when cache owners don't maintain their caches the only way to get them disabled is to alert a reviewer and the NA log seems to be the best way of doing this.

UNFORTUNATELY EVEN THAT DOESN'T WORK..........

3.7k · January 3, 2013

As I see it, informal maintenance of a cache by others can easily just propagate the message that placing caches is the end of the responsibility of ownership because someone else will look after them. It also helps propagate a message that if the cache doesn't seem to be there then it's perfectly OK to throw down another cache and claim it, which in turn can result in multiple caches in the same location. I recall reading at least once in here about someone having to make a trip out to their cache to remove a "throw down" cache someone had placed - they hadn't found it so assumed it wasn't there and replaced it. The trouble was the original was still there, just well hidden.

My view is that if a cache has a string of NM logs and the owner hasn't taken any action then it's perfectly fair game for anyone to log NA against the cache whether they've visited it or not. A string of NM logs with no corresponding maintenance by the cache owner says that the owner isn't maintaining the cache, and so it should be archived. If someone logs NM because the log is wet and another cacher replaces the log in response there's no reason why the owner can't log "Owner Maintenance" and refer to the other log to show that the maintenance has been carried out.

Unfortunately when cache owners don't maintain their caches the only way to get them disabled is to alert a reviewer and the NA log seems to be the best way of doing this.

I don't go for the "sends the wrong message" reason. Nor would I advise replacing a cache that appears to have gone missing; my advice if it's been missing for weeks and the CO hasn't taken any notice is go and have a look, and if you also can't find it then DNF and NA. I would never encourage a throw-down; that's a new cache placement.

If a cache with a NM has had the log replaced by a kindly cacher, then the NM will put off a certain proportion of people and the others won't have a problem. If the NM stays for an extended period after finder maintenance then I don't see why someone would post a NA. It's a viable cache. I think that's what happened with one I mentioned above and it wasn't a satisfactory conclusion.

The trouble with posting a NA without visiting is simply that it appears to be a haughty act of cache policing, as if you're trawling through random cache logs looking for what you consider misdemeanours. That sets you up as a self-appointed Superior Cache Officer who's an Expert Cacher and Knows What's Best For The Community, and it would be difficult to word your log to indicate otherwise. Had you visited, you have an obvious reason to be disappointed with the cache...and you know what the exact status of the cache is. You can't always believe logs; I posted a NM recently on a cache after I could only just manage to squeeze my initials in the full log book, but when the CO visited he didn't change it because he found lots of room (I've no idea how I missed that!).

3.3k · January 3, 2013

Unfortunately when cache owners don't maintain their caches the only way to get them disabled is to alert a reviewer and the NA log seems to be the best way of doing this.

UNFORTUNATELY EVEN THAT DOESN'T WORK..........

I've found that when I've logged NA on a cache the reviewers usually pay it a visit within a fairly short time.

3.3k · January 3, 2013

As I see it, informal maintenance of a cache by others can easily just propagate the message that placing caches is the end of the responsibility of ownership because someone else will look after them. It also helps propagate a message that if the cache doesn't seem to be there then it's perfectly OK to throw down another cache and claim it, which in turn can result in multiple caches in the same location. I recall reading at least once in here about someone having to make a trip out to their cache to remove a "throw down" cache someone had placed - they hadn't found it so assumed it wasn't there and replaced it. The trouble was the original was still there, just well hidden.

My view is that if a cache has a string of NM logs and the owner hasn't taken any action then it's perfectly fair game for anyone to log NA against the cache whether they've visited it or not. A string of NM logs with no corresponding maintenance by the cache owner says that the owner isn't maintaining the cache, and so it should be archived. If someone logs NM because the log is wet and another cacher replaces the log in response there's no reason why the owner can't log "Owner Maintenance" and refer to the other log to show that the maintenance has been carried out.

Unfortunately when cache owners don't maintain their caches the only way to get them disabled is to alert a reviewer and the NA log seems to be the best way of doing this.

I don't go for the "sends the wrong message" reason. Nor would I advise replacing a cache that appears to have gone missing; my advice if it's been missing for weeks and the CO hasn't taken any notice is go and have a look, and if you also can't find it then DNF and NA. I would never encourage a throw-down; that's a new cache placement.

I thought previously you'd mentioned maintaining a cache including replacing the container if necessary. Maybe I misunderstood or misread (it wouldn't be the first time). I don't have a problem with doing good deeds for other cachers who are still active, so I think we're in agreement there.

I remember one cache I went to find, it was one of the hardest puzzles I'd done up to that point. Having confirmed with the owner that I had the right answer he said that it had had a couple of DNFs and he wasn't sure it was still there, and specifically invited me to take a film pot cache so I could replace it if it was actually missing (the hide was such that it could only have been in one place, once the puzzle was solved). As it happened it was still there, I guess the previous DNFs had been from people who had an incorrect solution to the puzzle.

If a cache with a NM has had the log replaced by a kindly cacher, then the NM will put off a certain proportion of people and the others won't have a problem. If the NM stays for an extended period after finder maintenance then I don't see why someone would post a NA. It's a viable cache. I think that's what happened with one I mentioned above and it wasn't a satisfactory conclusion.

It's not ideal but on the flipside if a cache owner can't be bothered to write an "owner maintenance" log that says nothing more than "thanks to Happy Humphrey for replacing the log" or some such then it does rather suggest they aren't interested in their cache any more.

The trouble with posting a NA without visiting is simply that it appears to be a haughty act of cache policing, as if you're trawling through random cache logs looking for what you consider misdemeanours. That sets you up as a self-appointed Superior Cache Officer who's an Expert Cacher and Knows What's Best For The Community, and it would be difficult to word your log to indicate otherwise. Had you visited, you have an obvious reason to be disappointed with the cache...and you know what the exact status of the cache is. You can't always believe logs; I posted a NM recently on a cache after I could only just manage to squeeze my initials in the full log book, but when the CO visited he didn't change it because he found lots of room (I've no idea how I missed that!).

I wouldn't post NA on a cache simply because it had a single NM, although I have posted NA on a couple of caches that I hadn't visited. It's not so much down to an issue of being some form of cache police but when there's a cache near me that is disabled for months and shows no signs of being replaced, or when a cache has several months worth of DNFs and a bunch of NM logs asking the owner to verify it's still there, then my view is that it might as well be brought to a reviewer's attention. Even if all that happens is it gets disabled that's a step forward.

One cache I hunted a few months back appeared to have gone, the cache owner didn't respond to the numerous DNFs and several NM logs so after about three months I posted NA on it. Within a week or so the reviewer disabled it, and within 24 hours the CO had suddenly found the time to replace the missing cache and enable it. It's not something I regard as ideal but then if the owner isn't maintaining a cache then sooner or later it needs to be archived.

The fact I haven't logged a DNF doesn't mean that an NA log is just trawling caches looking for someone to hit with a stick, it could easily be that it's a cache that's caught my attention for some reason (perhaps I'm staying nearby and it looks like one I'd want to find, perhaps it's a cache that looks interesting but far enough out of my way that I'd want to be sure it's actually there before travelling to look for it), and in the process of watching it I've realised that it probably isn't there and the CO shows no signs of maintaining it.

That said you do make some good points, for all I think the NA log should perhaps be used more than it is I wouldn't want to see them thrown around like candy. In an average year I log NA maybe 3-4 times, or in other terms probably 1 NA log for every 200 or so caches, and some of those are requests to archive an event that's long since over.

3.7k · January 3, 2013

I thought previously you'd mentioned maintaining a cache including replacing the container if necessary. Maybe I misunderstood or misread (it wouldn't be the first time).

There's a big difference between replacing a container that's sprung a leak or is showing its age, and placing a new container when you haven't found the cache.

It's not so much down to an issue of being some form of cache police but when there's a cache near me that is disabled for months and shows no signs of being replaced, or when a cache has several months worth of DNFs and a bunch of NM logs asking the owner to verify it's still there, then my view is that it might as well be brought to a reviewer's attention. Even if all that happens is it gets disabled that's a step forward.

If the cache seems to have disappeared and the listing is being ignored by the cache owner long-term, then I agree with a NA being appropriate. If it's local to me I'd still go and have a look first though. I was criticising hasty NA logs for caches that merely have a damp log book, and where the NA was initiated by somone that seems to have no personal reason to interfere.

3.3k · January 3, 2013

I thought previously you'd mentioned maintaining a cache including replacing the container if necessary. Maybe I misunderstood or misread (it wouldn't be the first time).

There's a big difference between replacing a container that's sprung a leak or is showing its age, and placing a new container when you haven't found the cache.

Ah, that makes sense. It's still something I'd only want to be doing for a cacher who was still active as a favour, rather than something to do to keep an otherwise abandoned cache limping along. But that's just me.

It's not so much down to an issue of being some form of cache police but when there's a cache near me that is disabled for months and shows no signs of being replaced, or when a cache has several months worth of DNFs and a bunch of NM logs asking the owner to verify it's still there, then my view is that it might as well be brought to a reviewer's attention. Even if all that happens is it gets disabled that's a step forward.

If the cache seems to have disappeared and the listing is being ignored by the cache owner long-term, then I agree with a NA being appropriate. If it's local to me I'd still go and have a look first though. I was criticising hasty NA logs for caches that merely have a damp log book, and where the NA was initiated by somone that seems to have no personal reason to interfere.

Sure, if the cache has a wet log (especially after the kind of rain we've had lately) I wouldn't expect any owner to be out right away to fix it. That's also not the kind of thing I'd want to log NA on because that is something that I'd regard as bullying. If the cache was waterlogged, reported as being wet for many months, maybe reported as being mouldy, then I'd consider posting NA against it. Even then I'd only know about such logs if I'd either been there myself or had sufficient interest in going there to have been watching the cache page.

So it looks like we're pretty much in agreement on most of it

January 3, 2013

Dartymoor As I am new in the area yes I did just send you a frend request

What I am on about is what is going on in Hampshire Berkshire area

It's not nice hearing where one person is upsetting people by playing god some of the people are weekend Cachers ie mums with children who's caches are there kids and it's them who get up set seeing there mum getting up set buy some keyboard warrior whos retired and has nothing better to do than police his 10 miles from his house,

Ok one of the caches was sceptible but nothing worse than one I found yesterday

Some times advice to new Cachers not harass them by email and nasty logs

When I 1st started trying to cache I asked the 1st persons cache I found for help unfortunately the cacher was too bizzy now I am 250 off overtaking him and had a lovely email from him after I checked on one of his caches thanking me that is what caching is about!!!

(sorry don't have spell check on my phone)

January 4, 2013

Dartymoor As I am new in the area yes I did just send you a frend request

What I am on about is what is going on in Hampshire Berkshire area

I apologise for going off a bit abruptly, and that my post seems to have taken your thread in another direction.

Anyway, welcome to Devon! Hope to bump into you one day!

3.3k · January 4, 2013

Dartymoor As I am new in the area yes I did just send you a frend request

What I am on about is what is going on in Hampshire Berkshire area

It's not nice hearing where one person is upsetting people by playing god some of the people are weekend Cachers ie mums with children who's caches are there kids and it's them who get up set seeing there mum getting up set buy some keyboard warrior whos retired and has nothing better to do than police his 10 miles from his house,

It's really hard to say anything useful about this simply because what's happening here is that you've heard something from someone else (i.e. it's second hand when you got it) and then you're passing it on to us so we're hearing it third hand.

We don't know whether this person has been subject to an abusive log that was out of line, whether she just has other priorities and as a result started getting NA logs on her caches, or whether she's got a very thin skin and regards an NM log as a personal insult.

In fairness to people who place NA logs, if someone hasn't got time to maintain a cache they shouldn't surprised if people say it should be archived. It's clearly not reasonable to expect every NM log to be actioned within an hour or so but if a cache needs maintenance and the owner hasn't done anything about it after several weeks it is reasonable to question whether they are still interested in their cache at all.

January 4, 2013

Well I got the info I needed on the 1st post so I don't really need to explan my self but then you decide http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=96981d01-8459-4077-8c9d-44b26953e54c

1.1k · January 4, 2013

Well I got the info I needed on the 1st post so I don't really need to explan my self but then you decide http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=96981d01-8459-4077-8c9d-44b26953e54c

But there isn't anything there to help us decide. Provided all the logs saying the log book is saturated are true, and there is no reason to suspect they are not, I can't see why the cache owner is so upset. The "wet" logs go back for at least 8 months, during which someone else emptied water out of the cache and someone else kindly replaced the log book, but it has pretty obviously got saturated again. As far as I can see the cache owner never visited the cache during that time.

But there is nothing rude or offensive there, simply logs reporting the condition of the cache. What is he (and you) so upset about?

Replacing someone else's log book (preferably by pre-arrangement) is a kind and generous act, but it's not a requirement or an obligation and remains the cache owner's responsibility. Besides, it looks like this one needed more than a new log, it may have needed a better quality container.

Rgds, Andy

January 4, 2013

Probally not the best one to choose but that cacher arcived over 60 caches not just cos of that one!!

1.1k · January 4, 2013

Probally not the best one to choose but that cacher arcived over 60 caches not just cos of that one!!

Obviously I don't know the circustances, but if he wasn't able to maintain that cache maybe he wasn't able to maintain the other 59 either, in which case archiving them to free up the locations and get his own cache portfolio down to a manageable level is surely a good thing?

Rgds, Andy

January 4, 2013

Not maintaining a cache can happen for lots of reasons, many of them can be outside the CO's control as we all know.

However, surely posting a note on the page to apologise or explain the reason for the delay in maintenance is not beyond the wit of man (woman :anicute: )? I have posted quite number of NA's and NM's on caches but never on any where the CO is keeping his fellow cachers informed via a note/s on the page.

3.3k · January 4, 2013

Probally not the best one to choose but that cacher arcived over 60 caches not just cos of that one!!

Not trying to be funny here but why didn't you choose a better example if there are 60 to choose from?

I really struggle to see anything in the cache logs that would remotely justify comments about a self-appointed cache cop being awkward. There are comments dating back 12 months about the log being damp, the cache being full of water, the log being soaked, the log being so wet it couldn't be signed very well and so on. Then the CO deciding that s/he was unwilling to put up with the nonsense and archiving all the caches.

If a cache owner can't check on their caches perhaps they shouldn't put out so many caches in the first place. And as thehoomer said, if there's a reason why a cache can't be maintained for a while the CO can post a note to explain, disable the cache until they can get out to it, and then maintain it.

January 5, 2013

Probally not the best one to choose but that cacher arcived over 60 caches not just cos of that one!!

Not trying to be funny here but why didn't you choose a better example if there are 60 to choose from?

I was on my Iphone and trying to keep you all informed while on the move

so different cache owner same problem

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ec1496a0-8b8e-436d-8ac4-57b7c39469c3

January 5, 2013

Probally not the best one to choose but that cacher arcived over 60 caches not just cos of that one!!

Not trying to be funny here but why didn't you choose a better example if there are 60 to choose from?

I was on my Iphone and trying to keep you all informed while on the move

so different cache owner same problem

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ec1496a0-8b8e-436d-8ac4-57b7c39469c3

From what I can gather from a very quick scan of the logs, the cache was buried and therefore in contravention of the guidelines. Cachers who found this were within their rights to make a comment/comments regarding this on the page. May be a more tactful response would've been to email the owner but aside from that, I don't see a 'problem'.

January 5, 2013

I was on my Iphone and trying to keep you all informed while on the move

so different cache owner same problem

http://www.geocachin...c4-57b7c39469c3

Having read through that cache page, I'm still not clear what the problem is. If the cache was in effect buried then it ought to be archived surely?

Can't help suspecting a personality clash of some kind.

3.7k · January 5, 2013

I read the logs and looked at the photos and I suspect that the cache was pushed into a small hole in the ground. Not one I'd bother with if there are trees around as well (needle in a haystack) and probably not against the guidelines. I can understand some people thinking that it contravenes a guideline, and for a while (until the wording was changed) perhaps it did. Also, the CO might not have anticipated that the cache could get covered over with dirt once it's been there a while (hence the logs saying that it's definitely buried). I know that this type of cache causes extreme frustration and annoyance and people are likely to get short-tempered. One of mine that was similar (but bigger and in an open space with no trees!) was based on a cache that caused huge controversy, with all sorts of hate mail.

But again, there's no real evidence of bullying there. Next example?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Happy Humphrey

January 5, 2013

I have to say, in neither example can I detect any evidence of Bullying, rudeness or cache policing. Cachers have simply logged their experiences and honestly expressed their opinions.

Can you possibly explain where and how you think some injustice has taken place?

Edited to add.... You anticipated me HH !!

Edited January 5, 2013 by thehoomer

January 5, 2013

I have to say, in neither example can I detect any evidence of Bullying, rudeness or cache policing. Cachers have simply logged their experiences and honestly expressed their opinions.

Can you possibly explain where and how you think some injustice has taken place?

Edited to add.... You anticipated me HH !!

The log in question was deleted by the cache owner and the subsequent emails that followed has caused the owner to not bother caching

but as i say it is being dealt with so no need for your interference

6.1k · January 5, 2013

I'm not involved in this but I have seen discussions elsewhere, so here is a bit of 2nd hand information:

There is an individual in the Hants/Berks border area who has been logging NAs and Emailing COs about some of their caches, several COs have been unhappy about his behaviour and a lot of caches have been archived as a direct result, not because every cache had a problem but because some COs have been put off the game by this cacher.

I know the bit about caches being archived en-masse is correct but I can't comment on the content of any communication from the perpetrator (as I'm not involved), but he didn't have any logs on either of the caches identified above that I could see (perhaps they have been deleted?)

I do know that at a FB discussion on this was deleted because names were named and it was felt that some mud slinging was occuring and the main protagansists were not present to represent themselves, therefore I'm not going to name names.

I think Bazzer has made his point, maybe it's time to let it lie, have a drink tonight, and go out caching tomorrow? - that's my plan anyhow :lol:

January 5, 2013

I have to say, in neither example can I detect any evidence of Bullying, rudeness or cache policing. Cachers have simply logged their experiences and honestly expressed their opinions.

Can you possibly explain where and how you think some injustice has taken place?

Edited to add.... You anticipated me HH !!

The log in question was deleted by the cache owner and the subsequent emails that followed has caused the owner to not bother caching

but as i say it is being dealt with so no need for your interference

Excuse me, I had no idea I was interfering, I was under the impression I was taking part in a discussion which you yourself instigated :wacko: .

January 5, 2013

Well I got the info I needed on the 1st post so I don't really need to explan my self but then you decide http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=96981d01-8459-4077-8c9d-44b26953e54c

What after this post

As I say I got the info I needed on the 1st post

That should have been the end of it!!!

Edited January 5, 2013 by bazzer1975

1.1k · January 5, 2013

That should have been the end of it!!!

Not at all, you made some pretty serious accusations and have so far failed to offer any evidence for them.

Just out of interest, while I'm generally pretty combative, I found to my surprise today that I had let myself be bullied and intimidated by you into not reporting a disintegrating and nearly full log on a cache, because I didn't happen to have a replacement with me!

Rgds, Andy

January 5, 2013

Well I got the info I needed on the 1st post so I don't really need to explan my self but then you decide http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=96981d01-8459-4077-8c9d-44b26953e54c

What after this post

As I say I got the info I needed on the 1st post

That should have been the end of it!!!

Ooooh, I feel like I have been chastened :blink: !

Perhaps then, you might have considered refraining from posting replies, giving examples and keeping the thread going?

In any event I hope your 'championing' for these cachers eases your mind and gives you contentment .

January 6, 2013

There was a discussion not long ago regarding whether the NA log was appropriate or if it should be amended to NEEDS MAINTENANCE.

The problem being that caches often come up with problems that need addressing and need the reviewers to be aware of.

The logging system is a blunt tool. The written word can also be a blunt tool when restricted. Surely it's better something is said than leave a problem to fester. If someone is abusive there is plenty of opportunity to report them.

Complaining about caches is not being a cache police.

3.3k · January 6, 2013

I have to say, in neither example can I detect any evidence of Bullying, rudeness or cache policing. Cachers have simply logged their experiences and honestly expressed their opinions.

Can you possibly explain where and how you think some injustice has taken place?

Edited to add.... You anticipated me HH !!

The log in question was deleted by the cache owner and the subsequent emails that followed has caused the owner to not bother caching

but as i say it is being dealt with so no need for your interference

Interference? Who is interfering?

I know this has been said already but you started a discussion, accused unspecified people of bullying, and then posted an example of that bullying that showed no signs of anything that any of us would call bullying. Then for good measure said we didn't need to "interfere"? Even in your followups you're talking about a deleted log and private email - we can't see those so the "evidence" you've posted for bullying taking place is anything but evidence of anything.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss something why are you posting it here at all?

3.7k · January 6, 2013

Bazzer: with respect, if you start a thread on a discussion forum with a controversial title (such as "cache policing is just bullying") and start it off with mysterious accusations, such as

With cache owners saying (quote) I am not the first cache setter he has upset and archived caches because of his attitude towards them. and another when people start getting personal or insulting, especially in their logs...

...do you expect to just get a simple answer to a question? Of course not. We know that you could have just e-mailed a reviewer or e-mailed Groundspeak if you wanted an answer with no discussion. But you decided to set up a discussion thread instead.

Now you're floundering because you have no examples of the alleged cache policing (or none that you can make public). Which is fine, but perhaps it would have been better to just admit this and let the thread die off, rather than stir it up with accusations of "interference".

January 6, 2013

What you on about??

I asked a question and got an answer what you want to discuss after that is up to you

What you are now doing is swinging the tables.

Yet I have forwarded on to the people who are affected 5 people that I know of and its up to them to follow up

as has been said before why don't people use the GC forams well this is a perfect example any one who posts is attacked by negativity all the time

January 6, 2013

What you on about??

I asked a question and got an answer what you want to discuss after that is up to you

What you are now doing is swinging the tables.

Yet I have forwarded on to the people who are affected 5 people that I know of and its up to them to follow up

as has been said before why don't people use the GC forams well this is a perfect example any one who posts is attacked by negativity all the time

Bazzer.

Please be assured that we were all simply trying to help you and make some sense out of all the covert messages you provided. Your input on the forums is as valuable as the next person and I’m not for one minute suggesting that you refrain from posting on it.

However, might I suggest that in any of your future quests of this nature, you privately email a reviewer to get an answer to your question, this way; no one on the forums will have the opportunity to interfere or attack you with negativity.

3.7k · January 6, 2013

as has been said before why don't people use the GC forams well this is a perfect example any one who posts is attacked by negativity all the time

The negativity was from you when you started accusing people of "interfering". You're also the first person to become rude. I've no idea whether I'm swinging tables (whatever that means). If you start a discussion and then continue posting you can expect people to continue discussing; and it had been pretty civil until the "interfering" post. We were simply asking for an example of bullying, and I suggested that if you didn't have one then say so.

7.5k · January 6, 2013

The trouble with posting a NA without visiting is simply that it appears to be a haughty act of cache policing, as if you're trawling through random cache logs looking for what you consider misdemeanours.

Naturally it's a matter of degree. A few times now, I've planned to get some caches in a new area and, while checking logs, run into a cache that clearly hasn't been there in any findable form for quite some time. I've filed an NA to try to avoid other people wasting as much of their time as I have looking at this cache description on-line. I'm certainly not going to waste even more time going to GZ to justify my action.

January 6, 2013

Closing thread at request of OP

cache policing is just bullying

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment