Jump to content

Container/No Container/Log/No Log Ruling


Team Firenze

Recommended Posts

And the Jihad continues...

 

Nope my point is that you don't have the experience to judge or criticize.

 

I'm thinking it's likely that he's seen a chunk of wood in his life.

I'd bet he's even seen a Sharpie before.

In the case of this cache, that's all the experience needed to judge and/or criticize.

 

My point there is that he is EXTREMELY critical and judgemental in his comments. I was trying to figure out on what basis he feels that he can be that way.

 

I don't think I am exaggerating when I paraphrase his statement as "That cache is stupid. I told you what to do. Why are you still here".

 

I might accept that from some supercacher who has tons of experience and hosts CITOs like the rest of us find LPCs but that doesn't seem to be what we have here.

Link to comment

 

Sorry, but no contradiction here, it's quite simple. The guidelines require a container and logbook. They also provide some flexibility as to what can be considered a container and logbook.

S

 

Okay, I was stuck on the "required" and "flexible" but I see now how they are referring to two different things.

 

So, I guess you are already saying we have the flexibility I am asking for but that it just doesn't extend as far as I would like.

 

I guess that is fair but I am looking for something more abstract.

 

If I assume that common sense in reviewers is common.

If I Hypothesize that a reviewer is not looking at 100s of caches a month but less than a 100.

And that cache owners put a solid description of what the cache container, hide, and location are like.

Is it inconceivable that the reviewer could look at a cache like this and publish it.

With the same guidelines but with a little more subjectivity allowed.

 

I also ask that for the moment we ignore the slippery slope.

 

Is this possible?

Link to comment

 

Maybe you should start criticizing yourself before you criticize others.

 

http://coord.info/GC45ANV

 

4 finds. 3 DNFs. Questionable terrain rating and archive in less than 3 months.

 

Temporary caches aren't allowed according to the guidelines either.

 

Really? Is that your point? You're dangerously close to trolling here. I placed a cache after a month in the game. It went missing. I decided to let it go. Happens all the time. Nice try, but you're reaching.

 

So tell me...how would finding a log with a pen attached suddenly open my eyes to the awesomeness? I really can't wait to find out. Surely it's a story for the ages.

 

Anyway...I offered ideas (good, bad...who cares? they were spur of the moment ideas) for meeting the guidelines that you dismissed in favor of tying a bison tube to the log. I suggested the CO try to tap into his creative side, but ultimately he opted for the easy way out. It's clear to me that he (and you, apparently) didn't really want to do anything but flaunt the guidelines. The game - and many in here - offered an opportunity to challenge yourself, but instead you decided to challenge US. Again, the easy way out. I'd bet most anyone else would say to themselves "gosh...maybe it's a silly guideline, but sure, I'll rectify it to keep it in play". In this case, you just stick to your guns (and I'm just gonna keep saying "you"), desperately trying to defend a weak - and frankly silly and juvenile - position. German tanks, my foot. This is schoolyard level obstinacy.

 

I'm thinking the same thing. next, he'll hold his breath until he gets his way.

 

Either he just doesn't get and never will, or he's simply trolling at this point. What I find amazing is that it's a stupid cache and any passerby who sees it will think that geocachers are a bunch of vandals that write their names on things that they shouldn't be writing on.

Link to comment

[*]If you list a cache that violates the guidelines, and it eventually gets archived, walk away quietly. Do not contend that it was unfair and throw a fit over it.

Sorry, I have a bad habit of questioning authority. Kind of like my great uncle Benjamin Franklin. I don't lay down and let german tanks role over my back.

It is good to question authority at all times. However, there are no german tanks rolling over your back. You are a guest using a private website at will. A cache was taken down for not meeting basic requirements. Er, a large stick was removed from the active listings on a private website for not meeting basic requirements. It was funny and floated quite well, weighing less than a feather until gravity got the best of it. Now this thread is making it heavier than Rosie ODonnell after leaving the Golden Corral buffet, and you want it to float again?

 

[*]If a reviewer finds some caches that slip through the cracks and does nothing, be thankful he is tolerant. Don't imagine he is the Don following an unwritten code adhered to by the capo dei capi.

It is acutally "capo dei tutti capi".

Tutti is already silently implied and redundant. Perhaps it is written as a title, but not commonly spoken. Similar to what you are trying to write about unwritten rules. Showing respect only will get you further.

Link to comment

One reason is that the cache conflicts with the harmonious yin and yang of the universe. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (instead of opposing) forces interacting to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the parts. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, (for instance shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation.

 

The cache essentially is a female form, being a container, like a vase or yin. By contrast the seeker is holding a tool in their hand to locate this container with an phallic arrow pointing the way. Symbolically male. By not using a container, the cache is turned into a yang colliding with another yang. This is a disruption in the very basic flow of life, and who knows what dark forces this can unleash. I know some people may find this new experience rather exciting, and I don't have a problem with that. However most are expecting a very nice yin to be there, but then this yang log pops out at them. Personally, I don't like surprises like that. The last time something like that happened to me was in 1989 or so, and I got violently ill.

Link to comment

Sorry, but no contradiction here, it's quite simple. The guidelines require a container and logbook. They also provide some flexibility as to what can be considered a container and logbook.

 

Maybe contradiction is wrong word, but after all these posts I'm still not sure of what flexibility the reviewer has here and what line they can't cross.

 

Building on the known fact that the published guidelines say

 

Geocache Contents

Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Is either of the following statements true?

 

A. There are no further reviewer guidelines on this topic. The reviewer will use their judgement. One reviewer might conclude a logbook (only) in a library, or indeed a log like the cache in question is valid, another might conclude not.

 

B. There exists more detailed reviewer guidance on this topic. This guidance makes it clear that a cache like the "log" in question here, or a magnet with log glued to the back, is not allowed. It does however provide flexibility for caches like a logbook (only) in a library.

 

Or if neither are true, what is the correct statement?

 

For me - if the answer is A), I'm happy. Guidelines will always need some judgement.

If the answer is B, that's OK too, though I would like to understand what these additional guidelines say.

Link to comment

 

I'm thinking the same thing. next, he'll hold his breath until he gets his way.

 

Either he just doesn't get and never will, or he's simply trolling at this point. What I find amazing is that it's a stupid cache and any passerby who sees it will think that geocachers are a bunch of vandals that write their names on things that they shouldn't be writing on.

 

I am the one being juvenile. When you are the one calling someone else cache "stupid". Again, another example of forum "tanks" trying to roll over everyday cachers.

 

The cache is not in an area where pedestrians are. It also blends pretty well with the environment. 99% of muggles wouldn't know it was there.

Link to comment

It is good to question authority at all times. However, there are no german tanks rolling over your back. You are a guest using a private website at will. A cache was taken down for not meeting basic requirements. Er, a large stick was removed from the active listings on a private website for not meeting basic requirements. It was funny and floated quite well, weighing less than a feather until gravity got the best of it. Now this thread is making it heavier than Rosie ODonnell after leaving the Golden Corral buffet, and you want it to float again?

 

 

Obviously my forum regular friends are not getting the fact that they are the tanks and not GS. The tank comment was meant as point that (as it often true in most forums) regulars users are unable to have progressive dialogue because they will be attacked by a Cabal of Forum Regulars.

 

Throughout this entire mess of a thread I have seen some quality remarks from certain posters. I will continue to discuss my point with them.

 

At the same time I will respond to the attacks of the "we think your cache sucks now shut up and go home crowd".

Link to comment

One reason is that the cache conflicts with the harmonious yin and yang of the universe. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (instead of opposing) forces interacting to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the parts. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, (for instance shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation.

 

The cache essentially is a female form, being a container, like a vase or yin. By contrast the seeker is holding a tool in their hand to locate this container with an phallic arrow pointing the way. Symbolically male. By not using a container, the cache is turned into a yang colliding with another yang. This is a disruption in the very basic flow of life, and who knows what dark forces this can unleash. I know some people may find this new experience rather exciting, and I don't have a problem with that. However most are expecting a very nice yin to be there, but then this yang log pops out at them. Personally, I don't like surprises like that. The last time something like that happened to me was in 1989 or so, and I got violently ill.

 

[Edit] I realize this isn't the correct place to say what I said.

Edited by Team Firenze
Link to comment

You are arguing for the central aspect of the game requiring a log to be changed. That is much more than the slight nudge that you think it is. If no log is required then we end up with a scenario of rather limitless items that could be called a "cache". Instead of a penny with a container glued to the bottom, we end up with a penny, that you have to flip over and sign with a magnifying lens.

 

To me this seems more a slippery slope about size, which exists independently. Whether the log is glued to the penny or is in a tiny plastic sleeve attached to the penny - it is not a great idea. Or to put it another way - with any container with a log inside, if you make that container smaller and smaller eventually the log gets so small it is not usable.

 

We are probably near that limit with the current "blinkie" nano. If I design one which is half the size.. or 1/4 of the size.... it would be valid per the guidelines but the log would be horribly tiny.

 

This seems an issue independent of if a log is enclosed by a container or otherwise attached to it.

Link to comment

One reason is that the cache conflicts with the harmonious yin and yang of the universe. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (instead of opposing) forces interacting to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the parts. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, (for instance shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation.

 

The cache essentially is a female form, being a container, like a vase or yin. By contrast the seeker is holding a tool in their hand to locate this container with an phallic arrow pointing the way. Symbolically male. By not using a container, the cache is turned into a yang colliding with another yang. This is a disruption in the very basic flow of life, and who knows what dark forces this can unleash. I know some people may find this new experience rather exciting, and I don't have a problem with that. However most are expecting a very nice yin to be there, but then this yang log pops out at them. Personally, I don't like surprises like that. The last time something like that happened to me was in 1989 or so, and I got violently ill.

 

Mods are we going to allow 130am drunken homophobic rants that have nothing to do with the topic?

 

Nothing homophobic here. If that's somebody's thing, I don't have any problem with it. It's just not mine. There IS a definite yin yang disconnect here. You do a great job of speaking, but not listening. Communication is a two way street. Everyone has considered your points, but just don't agree. You keep saying the same thing but try to phrase it a little differently each time. Such a cache can exist unofficially, bit once there is a documented picture and paper trail it goes away. It's the same idea that Groundspeak used at Geowoodstock 2011, and nothing really new or unique about it. It's rare only because of the guidelines.

Link to comment

 

Nothing homophobic here. If that's somebody's thing, I don't have any problem with it. It's just not mine. There IS a definite yin yang disconnect here. You do a great job of speaking, but not listening. Communication is a two way street. Everyone has considered your points, but just don't agree. You keep saying the same thing but try to phrase it a little differently each time. Such a cache can exist unofficially, bit once there is a documented picture and paper trail it goes away. It's the same idea that Groundspeak used at Geowoodstock 2011, and nothing really new or unique about it. It's rare only because of the guidelines.

 

And you do a great job trying to justify your rant.

 

"Everyone has considered your points, but you just don't agree"

 

Not true, there are those that agree.

 

And along with the other forum regulars keep repeating the same. While I try and have a discussion with 3 or 4 people.

 

I get it. The cache is illegal. You don't like it. I should just leave your sandbox.

 

It's a form of bullying and I am going to respond to it.

 

Fortunately the thread has evolved into a conversation about guideline flexibility and reviewer response to it.

 

I will continue with both threads. Thanks for participating.

Link to comment

I never said that I didn't like it. You can go ahead and try to find where I said that, but it just didn't happen. There is no bullying here, only conflicting opinions. The amount of reviewer flexibility has been explained exclusively. A debate or lively discussion does not consist of everyone agreeing. Personally I'd like to see an exception or two made for logs made out of literal logs, although more existing would not necessarily be better. This cache seems to evoke a unique persona as a rather interesting rogue shabby chic art form. However not everything can exist forever, unless dead already. Life is a fleeting existence like a shooting star in the heavens above. It had a humorous aspect to it once, but now its demise has released a cloud of unrelenting noxious flatulence, and should be respectfully put to rest.

Link to comment

 

Sorry, but no contradiction here, it's quite simple. The guidelines require a container and logbook. They also provide some flexibility as to what can be considered a container and logbook.

S

 

Okay, I was stuck on the "required" and "flexible" but I see now how they are referring to two different things.

 

So, I guess you are already saying we have the flexibility I am asking for but that it just doesn't extend as far as I would like.

 

I guess that is fair but I am looking for something more abstract.

You might be looking for a while. The reviewers are constantly trying to remove the abstract from the discussion as well as the grey areas. But we acknowledge that they will always exist. This isn't one of those situations. By definition a container must contain or enclose the log. They cannot be the same object.

 

If I assume that common sense in reviewers is common. Thank you; we try our best.

If I Hypothesize that a reviewer is not looking at 100s of caches a month but less than a 100.

I cannot speak for all of the members of the team, but you are wrong with this hypothesis applying to most of the reviewers I communicate with.

And that cache owners put a solid description of what the cache container, hide, and location are like. Some do and some don't. From what I can see, the CO of the log cache in question did not.

Is it inconceivable that the reviewer could look at a cache like this and publish it.

If there was full disclosure in a reviewer note prior to publication-yes it is inconceivable.

With the same guidelines but with a little more subjectivity allowed.

See line one-the reviewers don't want to exercise more subjectivity. We strive to minimize the grey areas.

 

I also ask that for the moment we ignore the slippery slope.

Why do you want to ignore reality?

 

<massive snippage> Such a cache can exist unofficially, bit once there is a documented picture and paper trail it goes away. It's the same idea that Groundspeak used at Geowoodstock 2011, and nothing really new or unique about it. It's rare only because of the guidelines.

 

Meh, the first time I saw this idea used was at Geowoodstock V in 2007. But since events are not required to have physical logs it never caused the level of angst that this one has. Many events do have physical logs, but only as a symbolic totem. I've also seen surfboards, jumbo picnic baskets, and a life-size cardboard cow used as event logs.

 

72db2537-1b6e-429b-bfa3-4344b65675ab.jpg

Link to comment

Same way the mods represent in the forums, the reviewers represent in the listings. It's not a difficult point to grasp. You can "stand up to The Man" all you want, but it's pretty much ridiculous to make the "German tanks" analogy...as if you are standing up for some noble principle.

 

Again, still no point. Yes the moderators are the bosses in the forums (assuming they are the moderator of this specific forum) and yes the reviewer are the bosses regarding cache listing. I got that and always have. How does that pertain to the conversation?

 

Are you trying to say that the mods and reviewers have spoken so I should just take my opinions and ideas elsewhere??

 

Fact is, it's a log. With a sharpie. Ha ha. You had your clever moment. It doesn't work according to the guidelines, the CO got called out on it. Time for everyone to get over themselves here.

 

It's very easy to criticize a cache you have never found.

 

I haven't found your "log" cache either, but let's say that you somehow managed to convince GS that a wooden log for a cache was considered a viable container and I thought,"hey, what a cool idea. I think I'll try something similar". Instead of hiding a "log" though I hide a wooden chopstick near a Chinese restaurant (am I clever, or what). Some else thinks, "hah! I can do better than that" and hides a toothpick. Where do you draw that line on a signable cache, and more importantly, who draws that line?

 

 

Link to comment

I was performing my monthly GSAK cleanup to remove recently archived caches and, purely by chance, noticed one which I'm convinced is the cache in question. I reviewed all the logs and must say that there was no reason for this to be archived in the first place. Some quotes:

From the Reviewer: Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

I interpret the log itself to meet the requirement of "other type of log". Frankly, this should never have even been considered by the reviewer. Here's the original NA request:

Please mantain or archive, thanks.

No reason listed and why would you not post a NM if that were all that were required? Then it gets worse...

Pls archive simply for the rudeness and numerous written attacks, after my initial archive request, and for the co not properly following up after several weeks, per gc guidelines. Thanks

So now we're archiving caches because one cacher took offense at some good-natured teasing?

 

All I know is that I will make it a point to go after this one, archived or not, as long as it is still physically there to be found. I hope never to run into the cacher (yes, I know who he is) who put in the NA requests.

Link to comment

OMG...What? Is it raining where ya'll live or something?

 

I don't really think he's serious. There are intense caches in extreme places and other well constructed using many hours of labor. This is just a solid piece of wood without any drilling, hinges or electronics. Perhaps its a form of comedy without an obvious laugh track.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I never said that I didn't like it. You can go ahead and try to find where I said that, but it just didn't happen.

 

My mistake, I was generalizing the Forum Tanks responses.

 

 

There is no bullying here, only conflicting opinions. The amount of reviewer flexibility has been explained exclusively. A debate or lively discussion does not consist of everyone agreeing.

 

I don't expect every one to agree at all. But with any thread that is controversial the same cast of characters deluge the OP with heavy handed criticism and try to bully them out of the forums.

 

 

Personally I'd like to see an exception or two made for logs made out of literal logs, although more existing would not necessarily be better.

 

 

So you agree that this cache should not have been archived?

 

This cache seems to evoke a unique persona as a rather interesting rogue shabby chic art form. However not everything can exist forever, unless dead already. Life is a fleeting existence like a shooting star in the heavens above. It had a humorous aspect to it once, but now its demise has released a cloud of unrelenting noxious flatulence, and should be respectfully put to rest.

 

Are you trying to channel the CO of this cache? Sounds like one his actual cache logs. I understand neither.

Link to comment

I was performing my monthly GSAK cleanup to remove recently archived caches and, purely by chance, noticed one which I'm convinced is the cache in question. I reviewed all the logs and must say that there was no reason for this to be archived in the first place. Some quotes:

From the Reviewer: Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

I interpret the log itself to meet the requirement of "other type of log". Frankly, this should never have even been considered by the reviewer. Here's the original NA request:

Please mantain or archive, thanks.

No reason listed and why would you not post a NM if that were all that were required? Then it gets worse...

Pls archive simply for the rudeness and numerous written attacks, after my initial archive request, and for the co not properly following up after several weeks, per gc guidelines. Thanks

So now we're archiving caches because one cacher took offense at some good-natured teasing?

 

All I know is that I will make it a point to go after this one, archived or not, as long as it is still physically there to be found. I hope never to run into the cacher (yes, I know who he is) who put in the NA requests.

 

The same cacher who posted the NA posted NA on another nearby cache. His states that his reason for the NA as opposed to the NM is that he has posted a bunch of NMs recently and none of them had been acted on. Therefore he was skipping the NM and going right to the NA.

Link to comment

 

I haven't found your "log" cache either, but let's say that you somehow managed to convince GS that a wooden log for a cache was considered a viable container and I thought,"hey, what a cool idea. I think I'll try something similar". Instead of hiding a "log" though I hide a wooden chopstick near a Chinese restaurant (am I clever, or what). Some else thinks, "hah! I can do better than that" and hides a toothpick. Where do you draw that line on a signable cache, and more importantly, who draws that line?

 

And repetitive response number 67. Yes we have discussed the slippery slope? I call it "the sky is falling argument". The fact is that these caches do exist and continue to be published. Yes nobody tries to publish a toothpick. You may not believe it but most COs have common sense and wouldn't try and publish a toothpick. If they did the reviewer would easily shoot it down. If that CO trying to publish went to the caching public and said "hey do think this is a good cache" 99.99% of cachers would say no. That is not the case with this cache.

Link to comment

 

You might be looking for a while. The reviewers are constantly trying to remove the abstract from the discussion as well as the grey areas. But we acknowledge that they will always exist. This isn't one of those situations. By definition a container must contain or enclose the log. They cannot be the same object.

 

 

By who's definition. I assume you are saying Groundspeak's. I am sure that reviewers would like more black and white guidelines. That would make their job eaiser. My purpose is not to make reviewer's jobs easier but to increase the quality of caches.

 

 

If I assume that common sense in reviewers is common. Thank you; we try our best.

If I Hypothesize that a reviewer is not looking at 100s of caches a month but less than a 100.

I cannot speak for all of the members of the team, but you are wrong with this hypothesis applying to most of the reviewers I communicate with.

 

 

I apologize, I cannot speak for all reviewer areas because i am not privy to their locations. I would assume that my reviewer looks at around 100 caches a month. To me that seems like an amazing amount work along with his other duties.

 

And that cache owners put a solid description of what the cache container, hide, and location are like. Some do and some don't. From what I can see, the CO of the log cache in question did not.

Is it inconceivable that the reviewer could look at a cache like this and publish it.

If there was full disclosure in a reviewer note prior to publication-yes it is inconceivable.

With the same guidelines but with a little more subjectivity allowed.

See line one-the reviewers don't want to exercise more subjectivity. We strive to minimize the grey areas.

 

I meant to ask this question as if the reviewers did have some flexibility.

 

 

I also ask that for the moment we ignore the slippery slope.

Why do you want to ignore reality?

 

Because I don't feel this is reality. We have these caches approved and in the wild. My experience is that most cachers actually feel that this type of class is legal. Yet we don't have a crazy amount of them out there being placed all the time.

 

Also, thank you for joining in the discussion. I appreciate posts that are actually discussions and not forum blasts.

Link to comment

It seems that the reviewers did what they are supposed to do in a case like this. The cache when first submitted did not make clear that there was no container and that the log was simple a log that also served as the cache. When a Needs Archive was submitted the reviewer took a closer look at the cache and determined that it doesn't meet the guidelines.

 

If rather than debating the merits of this one cache, one took a more general look at the guideline in question, it seems that there are plenty of issues that could be debated.

 

I understand that when virtual caches were grandfathered that Groundspeak needed a definition of a physical cache that would distinguish it from virtual caches and webcams. People would try to submit a virtual cache or webcam, altering the description until it would pass muster with the reviewer. By stating there must be a container and a log, TPTB solved this issue.

 

Now the problem becomes just what a container is, and just what serves as a log, and whether these can physically be the same thing.

 

It seems ridiculous to me that one can argue that a log book in a library is contained by the library so it is allowed but a board you write on that is left outside doesn't have a container so it is forbidden. What is the size of the library cache? It must be super large.

 

Given the idea is to define physical caches some way they can't be manipulated to be a virtual cache, it seems that this can be worded better. Perhaps simply define a physical cache as an object that the cache owner has left for others to find and that the physical cache must include some way for the finder to leave a log of their visit.

 

One issue I've always had with the current definition is that it seems to be a capitulation to the idea that you haven't found the cache unless you sign the log. Therefore the log is nearly always interpreted as being as separate physical item on which you can write your signature that you find inside the cache. It appears that some people may be unable to deal with finding something you don't need to open up and then signing that object rather than finding "the log" inside the container, because this wouldn't match their definition of a "find".

Link to comment

I haven't found your "log" cache either, but let's say that you somehow managed to convince GS that a wooden log for a cache was considered a viable container and I thought,"hey, what a cool idea. I think I'll try something similar". Instead of hiding a "log" though I hide a wooden chopstick near a Chinese restaurant (am I clever, or what). Some else thinks, "hah! I can do better than that" and hides a toothpick. Where do you draw that line on a signable cache, and more importantly, who draws that line?

 

And repetitive response number 67.

 

Perhaps some of the responses are repetitive because you don't seem to be listening to them

 

 

Yes we have discussed the slippery slope? I call it "the sky is falling argument". The fact is that these caches do exist and continue to be published. Yes nobody tries to publish a toothpick. You may not believe it but most COs have common sense and wouldn't try and publish a toothpick. If they did the reviewer would easily shoot it down.

 

So why shouldn't a toothpick be published? Is it because it's too small? There isn't a guideline which dictates how big a cache needs to be. How about a wooden pencil or a ruler? The point is a toothpick, or a pencil, or a ruler, or a 2 foot long log with the barked stripped off should be published. They all violate the "the cache must consist of a container and a log sheet" guideline. Yes, I know, there are caches out there which violate guidelines. Presumably if you've had a cache published you read and understand the guidelines. You don't have to read past the introduction to see:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

It doesn't matter if there are other caches that have been published where you sign the container. Period.

 

If that CO trying to publish went to the caching public

and said "hey do think this is a good cache" 99.99% of cachers would say no. That is not the case with this cache.

 

Whether or not 1% or 99% of cachers think a cache "is good" is irrelevant. At least two reviewers and many experienced readers have explained this to you. Actually, if you want to place a cache that does not have a container and a log there is nothing anyone can do to stop you. You just can;t list it on the Groundspeak site.

 

 

Link to comment

Perhaps some of the responses are repetitive because you don't seem to be listening to them

This. Exactly. Team Firenze has opted to play the martyr card. He asked a question, received numerous responses from the forum regulars, (who apparently are now called tanks?), which were polite, consise and on point. He didn't like those replies because they failed to validate his opinion. So, like the Energizer Bunny, he kept going, and going, and going, asking the same question over, and over, ad nauseum. The repetition became tedious, as he refused to listen to any answer that wasn't the one he wanted. Then he objects to being treated less politely in later replies.

 

When someone is deliberately being annoying, they no longer warrant polite discourse.

Link to comment

 

So why shouldn't a toothpick be published? Is it because it's too small? There isn't a guideline which dictates how big a cache needs to be. How about a wooden pencil or a ruler? The point is a toothpick, or a pencil, or a ruler, or a 2 foot long log with the barked stripped off should be published.

 

 

That is fantastic question which brings the thread back to where it currently is and where the forum regulars keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

The reason you wouldn't publish a toothpick or a regular pencil is simply because it wouldn't work as a cache. Finding a cache consists of finding something, signing a log, and logging on the website it would be pretty hard to sign a regular size toothpick unless you had like a nano laser or something.

 

They all violate the "the cache must consist of a container and a log sheet" guideline. Yes, I know, there are caches out there which violate guidelines. Presumably if you've had a cache published you read and understand the guidelines. You don't have to read past the introduction to see:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

It doesn't matter if there are other caches that have been published where you sign the container. Period.

 

Yep, I am well aware of this rule and quoted it earlier in the thread. The reason I quoted is to defeat the slippery slope idea. If you allow a cache, that doesn't fit the guideline exactly but is still a "cache" you can use the precedent rule to tell the person submitting the toothpick cache it won't be published.

 

If that CO trying to publish went to the caching public

and said "hey do think this is a good cache" 99.99% of cachers would say no. That is not the case with this cache.

 

Whether or not 1% or 99% of cachers think a cache "is good" is irrelevant. At least two reviewers and many experienced readers have explained this to you. Actually, if you want to place a cache that does not have a container and a log there is nothing anyone can do to stop you. You just can;t list it on the Groundspeak site.

 

Yes, it has been explained and is one of the reasons I continue to post. I find it absurd that a "good" cache cannot be published because it violates a rule that most geocachers don't understand. The only reason that can be given for this rule is the "slippery slope" one.

Link to comment

Perhaps some of the responses are repetitive because you don't seem to be listening to them

This. Exactly. Team Firenze has opted to play the martyr card. He asked a question, received numerous responses from the forum regulars, (who apparently are now called tanks?), which were polite, consise and on point. He didn't like those replies because they failed to validate his opinion. So, like the Energizer Bunny, he kept going, and going, and going, asking the same question over, and over, ad nauseum. The repetition became tedious, as he refused to listen to any answer that wasn't the one he wanted. Then he objects to being treated less politely in later replies.

 

When someone is deliberately being annoying, they no longer warrant polite discourse.

 

Haha, this one actually made me chuckle. It's a forum CR. I am under absolutely no responsibility to have to "listen" to any one except the mods. For you to even post something like this just proves my point about you and the forum regulars. You really do feel that you are better than the general public.

 

How many posts have I made that haven't been responses??? If you don't like it don't post. If you and your friends are saying it over and over again than stop saying it.

 

I personally have come out of this thread with some very interesting information and ideas. So, I guess the martydom has not been for nothing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...