Appraising Throdowns

[+JPreto]

Well... again with this subject... I know!

 

The thing is, right now, the position of Groundspeak (GS), the entity that manages the listings and the caches listed in their website, says this about Throwdowns (TD):

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

My interpretation is:

 

When a TD is placed the CO must check the cache ASAP to verify if the original container is there or not, and remove the TD.

 

But what if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding he will not be able to perform the proper maintenance, as said by GS guidelines. So, without proper maintenance, the cache should go through a process of Disable and if so Archive, like all other maintenance issues are dealt.

 

This is the way I interpret this guideline, but I recon there isn´t a word that prohibits a TD just advice on how to deal with them. But doesn´t GS uses this language on most of the rules/guidelines, does GS ever uses the word forbidden?

 

So, all this is left open for the reviewer to choose the acceptance or not of the TD in the cases where the CO is absent, because in the cases the CO is active and playing the game it is his responsibility to check the cache, even tho he is not forced to do it, it is just recommended.

 

I also am aware that this is just a game/hobby/pastime but TD can be a big issue when property rights start to arise.

 

What interpretation you make about this guideline? Are TD allowed and/or approved by game rules/guidelines?

[+JPreto]

I read the help center article in a different way. When faced with the issue of many cache owners complaining about throwdowns, TPTB added this section to indicate just what could be done about throwdowns. If TPTB literally meant that cache owners must check on throwdowns as soon as they are aware of them and remove the throwdown if the original cache is still there then we ought to get busy archiving lots of caches - including most power trails.

 

Instead I believe the phrase you quoted was meant to indicate that if the cache owner doesn't want throwdowns it's up to them to go out and remove the throwdown. The help center article goes on to indicate that if the cache owner does not remove the throwdown "there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container." The guidelines indicates that while the cache owner would have a reasonable claim to deny an online find to the geocacher who left the throwdown, if they fail to remove the throwdown they should allow finds on the throwdown by subsequent geocachers to remain.

 

If someone posts in the forum that they "hate throwdowns", there may be nothing I can say that will convince them that Grounspeak doesn't also hate throwdowns. I believe individual lackeys may hate throwdowns and if they are given the resposibility of writing up the help center article that they may let some personal opinion into the text. I try not to read to much into this. If a guideline is unenforceable, then it isn't much of a guideline. If Groundspeak were to try to enforce a maintenance requirement that owners must remove throwdowns you can be sure there would be a revolt.

 

This is just a copy from this post, that I thought deserved a response in different topic.

 

If a guideline is unenforceable, then it isn't much of a guideline. If Groundspeak were to try to enforce a maintenance requirement that owners must remove throwdowns you can be sure there would be a revolt.

I totally agree on this point that a guideline is only of any use if it is respected but, it´s like photologs, are they forbidden? No, they aren´t by the guidelines but still you, as a CO, are allowed to delete photologs.

 

So, actually what I see GS tries to do is to redirect people´s thoughts on how they see the game, and actually not forcing people to play it like they fell it should be played.

 

The pro-DNF marketing campaign is, in my opinion, a good example of this.

 

GS doesn´t say: "You must log every cache you visit" but it really tries to show how important you actions are for other geocachers by saying:

 

DNF, to say I care!

 

For the little time I am playing geocaching, the only strict rules are in regard of cache location and laws, about everything else GS just suggests the way the game should be played.

 

The problem, for me, with Throwdowns is that they can really raise some serious property problems... apart from players possibly finding 2 caches or only the TD and not being able to distinguish the real from the TD.

[+Manville Possum]

Throwdowns don't cause me any problems. If I found a TD and signed the log, I found a geocache at the posted coordinates and got a smiley. If you are having a problem with TD's, hide bigger caches. TD's are mostly limited to Urban Micros and numbers cachers.

[+briansnat]

Throwdowns don't cause me any problems. If I found a TD and signed the log, I found a geocache at the posted coordinates and got a smiley. If you are having a problem with TD's, hide bigger caches. TD's are mostly limited to Urban Micros and numbers cachers. : P

 

I've seen throw downs regardless of the cache size.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Throwdowns don't cause me any problems. If I found a TD and signed the log, I found a geocache at the posted coordinates and got a smiley. If you are having a problem with TD's, hide bigger caches. TD's are mostly limited to Urban Micros and numbers cachers.

 

So blame it on the cache owner because some geocachers feel entitled to a smiley every time they look for a cache? Placing a bigger cache only increases the presumption that it is missing if someone can't find it, which makes it more likely that some entitled geocacher is going to to drop a throwdown.

 

If you knowingly post a found it log on a TD after physically signing the log, a cache owner could rightfully delete your log.

[+Manville Possum]

Throwdowns don't cause me any problems. If I found a TD and signed the log, I found a geocache at the posted coordinates and got a smiley. If you are having a problem with TD's, hide bigger caches. TD's are mostly limited to Urban Micros and numbers cachers.

 

So blame it on the cache owner because some geocachers feel entitled to a smiley every time they look for a cache? Placing a bigger cache only increases the presumption that it is missing if someone can't find it, which makes it more likely that some entitled geocacher is going to to drop a throwdown.

 

If you knowingly post a found it log on a TD after physically signing the log, a cache owner could rightfully delete your log.

No, I said TD's don't cause "me" any problems. I never suggested that anyone else accept TD's, but fact is they are a part of geocaching, like them or not.

As for me, I photograph my sig on the log book or my sig item with the log book and post it with my finds most times. I have a low number of finds, and a high number of DNF's. I don't use TD's to gain a smiley. I see it as being up to the cache owner if they allow TD's. The main rule to geocaching for me is have fun, and not attempt to force my opinions on others. What works for me may not be suitable for others.

[+Walts Hunting]

I have only had two TD's and my immediate response was to delete the find and never got a objection from the finder. Probably a guilty conscience.

[+narcissa]

The problem here is that it's nearly impossible to enforce any kind of rules for finders. There will always be finders who "throw down," some because they think they're helping, some because they're unscrupulous. There will always be finders who don't know the difference, and selfish finders who shrug and take the find.

 

The only way to keep it in check is to put the onus on cache owners to keep tabs and perform maintenance when there are signs of trouble. As with any other maintenance issue, neglected caches will eventually fall under closer scrutiny by reviewers.

 

If another cacher feels that there's a compelling reason that a particular geocache is worthy of community maintenance, they are free to communicate with the reviewer to make the case for that.

 

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

[+JPreto]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

 

But then again, any user can post a NM or a NA, it´s up to the reviewer to do any action... but no, the cache cop is to blame!

 

I think that leaving all the responsibility to the CO has some issues, specially if the CO is absent from the game. In these cases the responsibility should pass to the reviewers but fact is, there are no guidelines on this subject so there are two main choices, as example I use the Americas:

 

1) a TD in a North American cache where the CO is absent is usually "Archive",

 

2) a TD in a South American cache where the CO is absent is "Game On, nothing we can do".

 

This is dual criteria and, in my opinion, should be avoid.

Edited May 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+narcissa]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

 

But then again, any user can post a NM or a NA, it´s up to the reviewer to do any action... but no, the cache cop is to blame!

 

I think that leaving all the responsibility to the CO has some issues, specially if the CO is absent from the game. In these cases the responsibility should pass to the reviewers but fact is, there are no guidelines on this subject so there are two main choices, as example I use the Americas:

 

1) a TD in a North American cache where the CO is absent is usually "Archive",

 

2) a TD in a South American cache where the CO is absent is "Game On, nothing we can do".

 

This is dual criteria and, in my opinion, should be avoid.

 

This isn't the only case I know of where there are regional variations in how the guidelines are enforced.

[+dprovan]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it.

[+qtbluemoon]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it.

Seriously? Just what is it you think I'm up to, dprovan?

[cezanne]

My interpretation is:

 

When a TD is placed the CO must check the cache ASAP to verify if the original container is there or not, and remove the TD.

 

But what if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding he will not be able to perform the proper maintenance, as said by GS guidelines. So, without proper maintenance, the cache should go through a process of Disable and if so Archive, like all other maintenance issues are dealt.

 

I do not fully agree with your interpretation which I regard as too strict without any necessity.

 

If someone would hide a throwdown for one of my caches which involves a longer hike, I would not run out at the first available moment to check the situation.

I certainly would keep an eye on the situation but would not react immediately if there is no necessity (that depends a lot on the situation). If it should turn out that in the end there are two containers, I would not delete logs of cachers that logged in the wrong one and would either remove the throwdown myself or ask someone among the next visitors to help me out. That could take however several weeks - my caches do not get that many visitors and I do not see a reason to run out as soon as possible or to disable a cache that is findable. Do not get me wrong, I would not ignore the issue, but do not think that disable logs or even needs archived logs are appropriate in such a situation.

 

If someone would log a needs archived log for a cache of mine because someone left a throwdown and I did not run out immediately, I would not harass the logger of the needs archived log, but instantly lose me motivation to take care of this cache and would instantly archive it myself. Clicking on a button is done in seconds, going for a longer hike is something more involved. If a cacher forces me to react quickly, then I will react with archival.

 

There are worse things that can happen than if some cachers log a replacement cache for a while. This does not mean that I appreciate throwdowns.

I read the paragraph you cited in the way that cache owners are recommended to keep an eye on owned caches where a throwdown happened, but I do not read this is a "must".

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2014 by cezanne

[+JPreto]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it.

 

I really wouldn´t like that this topic would be a follow up of the other topic, that´s why I, respecting the other topic, oppend a new one... and now we are getting back to it.

 

Both topic are related but one is talking about TD and the other about "honest" or "dishonest" NM or NA. OK?

 

I am going do quote this one and answer on the other topic, here.

[4wheelin_fool]

Many COs condone throwdowns, so the problem is not with the entire practice, but when it is done without any type of permission or behind their back. There is a big difference between the two types. Labeling a cache a throwdown when the CO appreciates it, is interfering and meddling in others business. I suppose that some would like the CO to visit and autograph the container to make it legit, but that's a bit too much. The gray area is when the CO is not active.

[+JPreto]

My interpretation is:

 

When a TD is placed the CO must check the cache ASAP to verify if the original container is there or not, and remove the TD.

 

But what if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding he will not be able to perform the proper maintenance, as said by GS guidelines. So, without proper maintenance, the cache should go through a process of Disable and if so Archive, like all other maintenance issues are dealt.

 

I do not fully agree with your interpretation which I regard as too strict without any necessity.

 

If someone would hide a throwdown for one of my caches which involves a longer hike, I would not run out at the first available moment to check the situation.

[...]

Do not get me wrong, I would not ignore the issue, but do not think that disable logs or even needs archived logs are appropriate in such a situation.

 

Thanks for the opinion, the thing is you will not ignore the issue meaning you are aware of the situation. The problem is when the CO is absent.

 

Who will be aware of the situation and responsible for it? The person that made the TD? The reviewer? The CO even if he/she is not actively playing the game?

Edited May 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+qtbluemoon]

I really wouldn´t like that this topic would be a follow up of the other topic, that´s why I, respecting the other topic, oppend a new one... and now we are getting back to it.

You're right, JPreto, I apologize. I'm out.

[+JPreto]

The gray area is when the CO is not active.

 

Thanks, this is exactly my point here in this topic!

 

Even tho I do not agree with other TD scenarios...

[cezanne]

The gray area is when the CO is not active.

 

Thanks, this is exactly my point here in this topic!

 

 

But you also wrote that in your interpretation an active cache owner has to run out and check his cache as soon as possible.

Being aware of the situation does not imply that a cache owner needs to take immediate action and moreover the action could also

be to accept the throwdown as a replacement as long as no problems are caused.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2014 by cezanne

[+JPreto]

But you also wrote that in your interpretation an active cache owner has to run out and check his cache as soon as possible.

 

Cezanne

 

Yup, this is my interpretation of this sentence, written in the guidelines I wrote on the first post:

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

 

I am actually quoting the ASAP from the guidelines themselves...

Edited May 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+qtbluemoon]

I'm beginning to think the gist of both topics is "Let bygones be bygones - as long as there is something to sign at GZ, all is well in the GC community. It's none of our concern."

[MoonPie Mafia]

I'm beginning to think the gist of both topics is "Let bygones be bygones - as long as there is something to sign at GZ, all is well in the GC community. It's none of our concern."

 

I do agree. Some geocaches are worth keeping alive by the community, so resetting or repairing a cache is very common. I would guess most of us carry a extra log in our cache bag. It irks me more to see someone play cache cop and think we must all play accordingly to the guidelines, which are not laws or rules, only guidelines. So is it cool to post NA on a cache because it is less than 528ft from another geocache? Maybe this thread could be merged with the wannabe reviewer thread.

[+narcissa]

I'm beginning to think the gist of both topics is "Let bygones be bygones - as long as there is something to sign at GZ, all is well in the GC community. It's none of our concern."

 

I do agree. Some geocaches are worth keeping alive by the community, so resetting or repairing a cache is very common. I would guess most of us carry a extra log in our cache bag. It irks me more to see someone play cache cop and think we must all play accordingly to the guidelines, which are not laws or rules, only guidelines. So is it cool to post NA on a cache because it is less than 528ft from another geocache? Maybe this thread could be merged with the wannabe reviewer thread.

 

It's "cool" to bring a proximity issue to the reviewer's attention. The final coordinates of a geocache are subject to the proximity rules, and are supposed to be visible to the reviewer.

 

If a geocache is "worth" keeping alive, share that point of with with the reviewer and offer to be responsible for the cache. It's not reasonable to expect other cachers to just hush up about an abandoned cache because you want to fly under the radar.

[+dprovan]

I'm beginning to think the gist of both topics is "Let bygones be bygones - as long as there is something to sign at GZ, all is well in the GC community. It's none of our concern."

Throwdowns are bad. Helping a CO with their consent is OK if you want to, less OK if you get consent only after the fact, and really not OK if you get only implicit, unverifiable consent.

 

What I objected to in the other thread is pretending to punish a throwdown by archiving the cache that was victimized by it.

 

Although I admit that "let bygones be bygones" isn't far off: my main point has always been "What's it to you?"

[+JPreto]

I'm beginning to think the gist of both topics is "Let bygones be bygones - as long as there is something to sign at GZ, all is well in the GC community. It's none of our concern."

 

I do agree. Some geocaches are worth keeping alive by the community, so resetting or repairing a cache is very common. I would guess most of us carry a extra log in our cache bag. It irks me more to see someone play cache cop and think we must all play accordingly to the guidelines, which are not laws or rules, only guidelines. So is it cool to post NA on a cache because it is less than 528ft from another geocache? Maybe this thread could be merged with the wannabe reviewer thread.

So for you, Groundspeak does all the work on trying to put the game together and you say: "Those are only guidelines, no one has to follow them..." so I guess you never complained about anything regarding geocaching, right, because for you there are no rules... is that it?

 

I am not the "anarchist" type of person, but you are free to be! Just respect other players and the game organizers that do all these guidelines/rules to protect the game you like to play.

[+JPreto]

So is it cool to post NA on a cache because it is less than 528ft from another geocache? Maybe this thread could be merged with the wannabe reviewer thread.

It's "cool" to bring a proximity issue to the reviewer's attention. The final coordinates of a geocache are subject to the proximity rules, and are supposed to be visible to the reviewer.

Nahh... just ignore the cache and say: "FOUND IT, TFTC" It´s much better... NOT!!!!

 

It´s not a matter of being "cool" or not, it´s a matter of respecting the rules of the game or not. If I see one of these I would put a NM and say that is closer than 0.1 mi from another cache. The CO just has to put the cache back to where it was before he changed the coordinates... not a big deal!

[+worstcaster]

If I knew a throw down was placed at one of my caches I would probably delete the found it logs after its placement. If you can't find it a DNF should be logged. Not logging a DNF can delay needed maintenance by the CO.

 

Placing a throw down and claiming a find is kind of like, going turkey hunting, bagging nothing, buying a bird at the supermarket, and inviting people over for dinner claiming you shot it.

[+JPreto]

Placing a throw down and claiming a find is kind of like, going turkey hunting, bagging nothing, buying a bird at the supermarket, and inviting people over for dinner claiming you shot it.

Very nice analogy... some "so called" hunters do that... as some "so called" geocachers do that also!

[+narcissa]

If I knew a throw down was placed at one of my caches I would probably delete the found it logs after its placement. If you can't find it a DNF should be logged. Not logging a DNF can delay needed maintenance by the CO.

 

Placing a throw down and claiming a find is kind of like, going turkey hunting, bagging nothing, buying a bird at the supermarket, and inviting people over for dinner claiming you shot it.

 

+1

[+tozainamboku]

puritans always shoot their own turkey

[+JPreto]

puritans always shoot their own turkey

Nope, I only shoot my own turkey if i want to say i am a Turkey Hunter... otherwise I will say I am a Shopper!!!

[+Manville Possum]

The gray area is when the CO is not active.

 

Thanks, this is exactly my point here in this topic!

 

Even tho I do not agree with other TD scenarios...

We have several ownerless community caches in my area where the owner left the game years ago. The community wants to keep them active because they are old and have lots of photos posted on them. I once posted a NA on one of those caches and got lots of nasty emails. Groundspeak allowed the cache to remain at the communitys request, and a reviewer "updated" the coordinates, and I replaced the cache with a new one in the new location. Groundspeaks rules are what they say they are, when and where they say they are. Just as you suggest, work with your reviewers. I saw a cache archived yesterday due to it being MIA with no finds in over a year, the CO has not signed on in over a year, so the reviewer archived the cache because both it and the CO are gone. About 15 of the 25 other listings owned by the CO are still active and can be found, but no CO, and no guideline says to archive them all because the CO is missing. Maybe we need more rules, but if I were a compulsive OCD cache hider I would grab a handfull of micros and contact the local reviewer. I enjoy quality geocaches with good swag in interesting places, not just for the numbers caches.

 

Geocaching is a happy game that I started playing with my kids, and our rule is have fun geocaching. It's the so called adults that get bent out of shape because the are right and everyone else is wrong, so they whine and complain.

 

Oh, BTW: We love your EC's.