Who owns throwdowns?

[+TeamRabbitRun]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.

 

Supertbone - As you can surmise from reading this thread, it's a mistake to assume that all CO's feel as you do. I would not want anyone to help me out by replacing my cache. I'd rather risk a few DNF's until I could get there. If I thought there might be a problem, I'd post a note log stating my intention to go look at it.

 

...Bill

[+Seaglass Pirates]

1) I do not understand your argument that the mere fact that the T&C exists means that every word in GC101 and the FAQ should be considered 'law'.

 

2) you might not like to hear it, but if your cache is requiring so many maintenance visits, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with its design.

 

I've just seen this and unfortunately the terms and conditions prevent me from displaying an answer in the way that a) I would like You deserve.

 

In answer to your first point - it isn't 'law' and I've not said it was. It is however terms of use. So using it means you have to comply with it. That's the contract you enter into. A little check box you ticked when you created your profile. I accept the terms and conditions of this website. Same as every other website. They probably use the same one. Whatever. By agreeing to that you have committed yourself to be bound by it ... nah you know what if you need that explaining your not going to accept the explanation or agree with so let's just skip this one.

 

In answer to your second point. Well here I am really constrained by the terms of use of this forum but trust me I would love to treat myself. But anyway - I'm a bit sure what you read when you read my post but it has no bearing on your reply. In fact your reply is both infantile and patronising. It's a lock and lock box. How poorly designed could it be. It's under a rock. It's hardly a novel concept with hide style but if you have never come across it before can I suggest a hobby called geocaching you might be interested in. Finally it requires no maintenance visits. I'm not quite sure how you missed it but it requires 'visits' to remove throwdowns. No maintenance required on the cache. But then again that was clear in the post. If you are classing removal of extra throwdown caches as a fault in the design of lock and lock with a rock on top i can only suggest various facilities that can help with assessment and medication. I'm not attacking you, I am debating your poor attention to detail.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.

 

Well said.

You speak for 90%+ of all cache owners, including myself , but a very low percentage of forum users of which some do not place caches. I've long ago lost track of how many emails I've received thanking me for help in maintaining caches.....not one mail said I should not have added a dry log or replaced the cracked container. I don't use the words " throwdown ", "lame ", etc that you see splattered around the forum. Someone wrote here that while the forum can be entertaining and informative you shouldn't confuse it with real everyday geocaching.....I would agree.

[+cerberus1]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.

 

Supertbone - As you can surmise from reading this thread, it's a mistake to assume that all CO's feel as you do. I would not want anyone to help me out by replacing my cache. I'd rather risk a few DNF's until I could get there.

...Bill

+1

Out of a couple dozen in my area who got nailed by long-time, PM, numbernut throw-downers, I'm one of two that ever posts in the forums.

- They're a few of the 10%ers I guess...

Took a community effort fixing caches and picking up the trash (film cans mostly) on caches still there that were left by these folks.

So no, we didn't "appreciate" it at all.

 

I could see it's possible that one could have so many caches that maintenance would be difficult.

In that case, having someone "gift" a film can at or near GZ probably would be appreciated.

[+tozainamboku]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

[4wheelin_fool]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.

 

Well said.

You speak for 90%+ of all cache owners, including myself , but a very low percentage of forum users of which some do not place caches. I've long ago lost track of how many emails I've received thanking me for help in maintaining caches.....not one mail said I should not have added a dry log or replaced the cracked container. I don't use the words " throwdown ", "lame ", etc that you see splattered around the forum. Someone wrote here that while the forum can be entertaining and informative you shouldn't confuse it with real everyday geocaching.....I would agree.

 

I would disagree. Not all throwdowns are alike. Replacing the cache with a similar one, with the owners knowledge is much different than leaving a disposable micro in place of a regular size container because you didn't have time to look. I would contend that to be throwdown the container would have to be left on the first visit and without the owner's okay. Here are two local examples I noticed from just yesterday. Both appear to either create confusion, or giving the owner unnecessary work.

 

The original cache is right where it is supposed to be. I picked up the provisional cache.

http://coord.info/GC4WM4Q

 

So I found this one but not before finding what I'm guessing is a throw down. I included a pic of it so you know it is not the cache. Apparently someone got frustrated and threw this down (again, I'm assuming!) because their gps was pointing to the wrong area, which mine also was. I thought it was fishy when it was just out in the open, in great shape, on a stump not a rock, and had a completely blank log. So I decided to check the other side where the rocks were and what do you know, A banged up cache (as described by previous logs) full with swag (trackable missing ...) and half full log sheet. CO if I'm wrong and you meant for this in some way email me and I'll edit this log. Tftc!

http://coord.info/GC3EZ8D

[4wheelin_fool]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

 

No, its more like seeing a U2 icon, but instead finding malware of a cover band who sounds awful, and believes that 90% of the public loves them.

[+sbell111]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.

 

Supertbone - As you can surmise from reading this thread, it's a mistake to assume that all CO's feel as you do. I would not want anyone to help me out by replacing my cache. I'd rather risk a few DNF's until I could get there. If I thought there might be a problem, I'd post a note log stating my intention to go look at it.

 

...Bill

I bolded what I feel is the most important part of his post. If his friends don't want him to do this, they'll tell him.

[+sbell111]

1) I do not understand your argument that the mere fact that the T&C exists means that every word in GC101 and the FAQ should be considered 'law'.

I've just seen this and unfortunately the terms and conditions prevent me from displaying an answer in the way that a) I would like You deserve.

 

In answer to your first point - it isn't 'law' and I've not said it was. It is however terms of use. So using it means you have to comply with it. That's the contract you enter into. A little check box you ticked when you created your profile. I accept the terms and conditions of this website. Same as every other website. They probably use the same one. Whatever. By agreeing to that you have committed yourself to be bound by it ... nah you know what if you need that explaining your not going to accept the explanation or agree with so let's just skip this one.

I can only believe that you have misunderstood the T&C/TOU as Toz pointed out.

 

2) you might not like to hear it, but if your cache is requiring so many maintenance visits, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with its design.

In answer to your second point. Well here I am really constrained by the terms of use of this forum but trust me I would love to treat myself. But anyway - I'm a bit sure what you read when you read my post but it has no bearing on your reply. In fact your reply is both infantile and patronising. It's a lock and lock box. How poorly designed could it be. It's under a rock. It's hardly a novel concept with hide style but if you have never come across it before can I suggest a hobby called geocaching you might be interested in. Finally it requires no maintenance visits. I'm not quite sure how you missed it but it requires 'visits' to remove throwdowns. No maintenance required on the cache. But then again that was clear in the post. If you are classing removal of extra throwdown caches as a fault in the design of lock and lock with a rock on top i can only suggest various facilities that can help with assessment and medication. I'm not attacking you, I am debating your poor attention to detail.

Those repeated visits that you have to remove throwdows are maintenance visits. Given that your cache is attracting many more throwdowns than one would normally expect, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about the way that it is set up that is causing people to do this. Edited September 15, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

 

No, its more like seeing a U2 icon, but instead finding malware of a cover band who sounds awful, and believes that 90% of the public loves them.

I disagree with your assessment that U2 is a cover band.

Edited September 15, 2014 by sbell111

[4wheelin_fool]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

 

No, its more like seeing a U2 icon, but instead finding malware of a cover band who sounds awful, and believes that 90% of the public loves them.

I disagree with your assessment that U2 is a cover band.

I disagree with your erroneous assessment of my assessment, which compared throwdowns to cover bands.

[+TriciaG]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

 

No, its more like seeing a U2 icon, but instead finding malware of a cover band who sounds awful, and believes that 90% of the public loves them.

I disagree with your assessment that U2 is a cover band.

He didn't say U2 was a cover band. He said that there's a U2 icon, but instead of finding U2 music, finding a second-rate wannabe U2 cover band.

[+sbell111]

It was a joke. Lighten up.

[+cerberus1]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

Might be like a throwdown, as I'm seeing only a few saying, "Thanks for putting this on my new phone without me asking for it".

Google it.

- A few claiming to be 90%, I don't understand though...

[+tozainamboku]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

Might be like a throwdown, as I'm seeing only a few saying, "Thanks for putting this on my new phone without me asking for it".

Google it.

- A few claiming to be 90%, I don't understand though...

So if you don't say "thanks" does that mean you didn't accept Apple's gift and Tim Cook should be arrested for littering on your iPhone?

Edited September 15, 2014 by tozainamboku

[4wheelin_fool]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

Might be like a throwdown, as I'm seeing only a few saying, "Thanks for putting this on my new phone without me asking for it".

Google it.

- A few claiming to be 90%, I don't understand though...

So if you don't say "thanks" does that mean you didn't accept Apple's gift and Tim Cook should be arrested for littering on your iPhone?

 

The comparison more closely resembles Tim Cook's dog taking a dump on someone's front lawn and having him characterize it a gift.

 

It's also like the guy at the ice cream shop who subsitutes cream cheese out of his personal lunchbox on your vanilla cone, due to it being out, and without asking you or the owner of the shop.

Edited September 15, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+cerberus1]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

Might be like a throwdown, as I'm seeing only a few saying, "Thanks for putting this on my new phone without me asking for it".

Google it.

- A few claiming to be 90%, I don't understand though...

So if you don't say "thanks" does that mean you didn't accept Apple's gift and Tim Cook should be arrested for littering on you iPhone?

What a silly thing to say...

Many right now, even those few who thought it might be a good idea, have included a section on "how to remove the unwanted 'gift' from your phone".

- The part that's not like a throwdown is, rather than a few minutes tapping away while enjoying your favorite coffee, we'd have to make a special/additional maintenance run to our hides to remove that unwanted "gift"...

[+tozainamboku]

Throwdowns are like getting a U2 album for free on your iPhone. 90% of people like it and the other 10% are say Apple is responsible for removing the unwanted gift.

Might be like a throwdown, as I'm seeing only a few saying, "Thanks for putting this on my new phone without me asking for it".

Google it.

- A few claiming to be 90%, I don't understand though...

So if you don't say "thanks" does that mean you didn't accept Apple's gift and Tim Cook should be arrested for littering on you iPhone?

What a silly thing to say...

Many right now, even those few who thought it might be a good idea, have included a section on "how to remove the unwanted 'gift' from your phone".

- The part that's not like a throwdown is, rather than a few minutes tapping away while enjoying your favorite coffee, we'd have to make a special/additional maintenance run to our hides to remove that unwanted "gift"...

That's exactly like a throwdown. Geocaching is an outdoor activity so I would expect maintenance to include visiting your cache, unlike an iPhone where you can swipe an icon and and select delete. What this thread has shown is that some people would rather not do the maintenace as recommended in the help center article and instead debate who owns the container.

 

The difference is that you don't see many people arguing that Apple should remove the CD from your iPhone for you. BTW, while it's easy to remove the music from your iPhone, it's bit more work to make sure iTunes doesn't reload it when it syncs. And whatever you do, your iStore account will still show that you "purchased" the CD. I "purchased" this as much as the person who left a throwdown "found" my cache. At least I can delete the "found" log if I don't accept the throwdown.

[4wheelin_fool]

What this thread has shown is that some people would rather not do the completely unnecessary maintenace as recommended in the help center article and instead debate who owns the container. is responsible for the litter.

 

Agree...

Edited September 15, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Seaglass Pirates]

1) I do not understand your argument that the mere fact that the T&C exists means that every word in GC101 and the FAQ should be considered 'law'.

I've just seen this and unfortunately the terms and conditions prevent me from displaying an answer in the way that a) I would like You deserve.

 

In answer to your first point - it isn't 'law' and I've not said it was. It is however terms of use. So using it means you have to comply with it. That's the contract you enter into. A little check box you ticked when you created your profile. I accept the terms and conditions of this website. Same as every other website. They probably use the same one. Whatever. By agreeing to that you have committed yourself to be bound by it ... nah you know what if you need that explaining your not going to accept the explanation or agree with so let's just skip this one.

I can only believe that you have misunderstood the T&C/TOU as Toz pointed out.

 

2) you might not like to hear it, but if your cache is requiring so many maintenance visits, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with its design.

In answer to your second point. Well here I am really constrained by the terms of use of this forum but trust me I would love to treat myself. But anyway - I'm a bit sure what you read when you read my post but it has no bearing on your reply. In fact your reply is both infantile and patronising. It's a lock and lock box. How poorly designed could it be. It's under a rock. It's hardly a novel concept with hide style but if you have never come across it before can I suggest a hobby called geocaching you might be interested in. Finally it requires no maintenance visits. I'm not quite sure how you missed it but it requires 'visits' to remove throwdowns. No maintenance required on the cache. But then again that was clear in the post. If you are classing removal of extra throwdown caches as a fault in the design of lock and lock with a rock on top i can only suggest various facilities that can help with assessment and medication. I'm not attacking you, I am debating your poor attention to detail.

Those repeated visits that you have to remove throwdows are maintenance visits. Given that your cache is attracting many more throwdowns than one would normally expect, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about the way that it is set up that is causing people to do this.

 

Reasonable to conclude other things more certain than your conclusion. I conclude that people who find the cache cannot remember where they got it from despite using the hint to locate it initially. And despite the dire warning that it does not belong in the rabbit hole ... they proceed to replace it there. This leads me to the conclusion that

a) you have a very unusual yet debilitating point of view which undermines your debate

b ) those people have in all probability undergone a minor stroke

c) there are arrogant people out there that will replace a cache that is not missing instead of log a DNF and smirk in the face of anything to the contrary.

d) 90+% of all percentages used in arguments are made up on the spot to win a point of view.

 

I also conclude that there may well be one at least one participant in this discussion that qualifies on all counts ...

[+sbell111]

1) I do not understand your argument that the mere fact that the T&C exists means that every word in GC101 and the FAQ should be considered 'law'.

I've just seen this and unfortunately the terms and conditions prevent me from displaying an answer in the way that a) I would like You deserve.

 

In answer to your first point - it isn't 'law' and I've not said it was. It is however terms of use. So using it means you have to comply with it. That's the contract you enter into. A little check box you ticked when you created your profile. I accept the terms and conditions of this website. Same as every other website. They probably use the same one. Whatever. By agreeing to that you have committed yourself to be bound by it ... nah you know what if you need that explaining your not going to accept the explanation or agree with so let's just skip this one.

I can only believe that you have misunderstood the T&C/TOU as Toz pointed out.

 

2) you might not like to hear it, but if your cache is requiring so many maintenance visits, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with its design.

In answer to your second point. Well here I am really constrained by the terms of use of this forum but trust me I would love to treat myself. But anyway - I'm a bit sure what you read when you read my post but it has no bearing on your reply. In fact your reply is both infantile and patronising. It's a lock and lock box. How poorly designed could it be. It's under a rock. It's hardly a novel concept with hide style but if you have never come across it before can I suggest a hobby called geocaching you might be interested in. Finally it requires no maintenance visits. I'm not quite sure how you missed it but it requires 'visits' to remove throwdowns. No maintenance required on the cache. But then again that was clear in the post. If you are classing removal of extra throwdown caches as a fault in the design of lock and lock with a rock on top i can only suggest various facilities that can help with assessment and medication. I'm not attacking you, I am debating your poor attention to detail.

Those repeated visits that you have to remove throwdows are maintenance visits. Given that your cache is attracting many more throwdowns than one would normally expect, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about the way that it is set up that is causing people to do this.

 

Reasonable to conclude other things more certain than your conclusion. I conclude that people who find the cache cannot remember where they got it from despite using the hint to locate it initially. And despite the dire warning that it does not belong in the rabbit hole ... they proceed to replace it there. This leads me to the conclusion that

a) you have a very unusual yet debilitating point of view which undermines your debate

b ) those people have in all probability undergone a minor stroke

c) there are arrogant people out there that will replace a cache that is not missing instead of log a DNF and smirk in the face of anything to the contrary.

d) 90+% of all percentages used in arguments are made up on the spot to win a point of view.

 

I also conclude that there may well be one at least one participant in this discussion that qualifies on all counts ...

I've concluded that you'd rather be rude than participate in an honest conversation.

[+wmpastor]

It seems the use of analogies and arguments based on analogies are getting us nowhere.

 

It is clear that the analogy a person chooses is based on their existing attitude toward throwdowns. In other words, the person who thinks that throwdowns are a thoughtful gesture will compare them to treasured gifts, and the person who sees them as an interference with the game will compare them to dog poop. Either way, it proves nothing.

 

By the way, does anyone know who owns throwdowns??

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Rude? Really? Observation was the game I thought. I observed that despite everything I said to the contrary you assumed you were right about something you knew very little. Despite the obvious inference of the circumstances i.e. That people cause a great deal of problems when throwing down a cache, you unusually took the stance that it was me that was at fault. Poor observation on your part kept you to the mantra that 'my cache' was inherently floored. Because as stated 'I' have never had a problem with throwdowns. My folks however ... And went on to explain. Assumption on your part and I suspect skim reading led you to see I had sorted it out. Well that's what you do for folks, meant that you married that to skim reading that the cache was mine.

 

There are many ways to be rude one of which is to ignore what someone is telling you as fact and continue to enforce your adgenda and opinions. The statement you quoted as rudeness is in fact irony and baleful humour in the face of a constant stream of defiance to common sense. So apologies for your misunderstanding of that fact and you are welcome lol. Chill out it's only Tupperware.

[+sbell111]

Rude? Really? Observation was the game I thought. I observed that despite everything I said to the contrary you assumed you were right about something you knew very little. Despite the obvious inference of the circumstances i.e. That people cause a great deal of problems when throwing down a cache, you unusually took the stance that it was me that was at fault. Poor observation on your part kept you to the mantra that 'my cache' was inherently floored. Because as stated 'I' have never had a problem with throwdowns. My folks however ... And went on to explain. Assumption on your part and I suspect skim reading led you to see I had sorted it out. Well that's what you do for folks, meant that you married that to skim reading that the cache was mine.

 

There are many ways to be rude one of which is to ignore what someone is telling you as fact and continue to enforce your adgenda and opinions. The statement you quoted as rudeness is in fact irony and baleful humour in the face of a constant stream of defiance to common sense. So apologies for your misunderstanding of that fact and you are welcome lol. Chill out it's only Tupperware.

Really.

 

(In my defense, your posts are very hard to understand. The one thing that you are stating that I got wrong with your example from two pages ago is that I remembered it as your cache, not your parents. Going back to the relevant post, I now understand my confusion as you described that ownership with something like "My family has had murders." I didn't adequately translate that comment into "A cache that my parents own has had a throwdown problem.")

 

To be clear, the owner of a cache that has repeated and ongoing problems as you described should consider that perhaps the basic cache design is causing people to perform these heinous acts.

Edited September 15, 2014 by sbell111

[+narcissa]

Chill out it's only Tupperware.

 

I hope not - Tupperware makes terrible cache containers!

[+sbell111]

Chill out it's only Tupperware.

 

I hope not - Tupperware makes terrible cache containers!

It's not even very good at keeping food in the fridge for a few days.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines/requirement for cache placement say that the the cache owner is responsible for maintaining their cache regardless of who is responsible for the maintenance issues. We have a local cacher who says "Rule #1: People are stupid" Meaning that if you put out a geocache somebody eventually will do something stupid and you will be stuck with maintaining your cache.

 

The options you have if a cache is causing you to do a lot maintenace are: 1) do the maintenacne - and stop making excuses for not doing the maintenance, 2) try to chage the hide some way to avoid whatever is causing stupid people (or in some cases animals or nature) from doing things that cause you maintenance, or 3) archive the cache.

 

I don't think sbell111 was rude in pointing out at least one of these options. It also sounds like you have tried the other two and are still having to do a lot of maintenance, so perhaps it isn't out of the question to consider the third option?

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Rude? Really? Observation was the game I thought. I observed that despite everything I said to the contrary you assumed you were right about something you knew very little. Despite the obvious inference of the circumstances i.e. That people cause a great deal of problems when throwing down a cache, you unusually took the stance that it was me that was at fault. Poor observation on your part kept you to the mantra that 'my cache' was inherently floored. Because as stated 'I' have never had a problem with throwdowns. My folks however ... And went on to explain. Assumption on your part and I suspect skim reading led you to see I had sorted it out. Well that's what you do for folks, meant that you married that to skim reading that the cache was mine.

 

There are many ways to be rude one of which is to ignore what someone is telling you as fact and continue to enforce your adgenda and opinions. The statement you quoted as rudeness is in fact irony and baleful humour in the face of a constant stream of defiance to common sense. So apologies for your misunderstanding of that fact and you are welcome lol. Chill out it's only Tupperware.

Really.

 

 

(In my defense, your posts are very hard to understand. The one thing that you are stating that I got wrong with your example from two pages ago is that I remembered it as your cache, not your parents. Going back to the relevant post, I now understand my confusion as you described that ownership with something like "My family has had murders." I didn't adequately translate that comment into "A cache that my parents own has had a throwdown problem.")

 

To be clear, the owner of a cache that has repeated and ongoing problems as you described should consider that perhaps the basic cache design is causing people to perform these heinous acts.

 

"My family has had murders" how on earth could it mean anything else - seriously though I totally understand your confusion it is a local dialect reference. How funny.

 

As for the cache design I'm sorry but I think you are confused as to what you think the cache is. No design of cache would prevent its removal and replacement in the wrong location. And no cache design would prevent throwdowns. Simply put you are incorrect on this ocassion.

[+JPreto]

About the 90% argument...

 

If 90% of the people would start stealing, would you do it also?

 

Com`on... haven´t you got better arguments?

[+tozainamboku]

Chill out it's only Tupperware.

 

I hope not - Tupperware makes terrible cache containers!

It's not even very good at keeping food in the fridge for a few days.

That's Gladware. Tupperware works pretty good both for storing food and for caches. But per rule #1, people generally don't properly close and seal the Turpperware.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

I suspect the issue is being tight and skimping on the good stuff. A pound shop lock and lock is not a proper lock and lock. Buy cheap buy twice. And god if cachers stopped using lock and lock they would go bust here.

[+sbell111]

Chill out it's only Tupperware.

 

I hope not - Tupperware makes terrible cache containers!

It's not even very good at keeping food in the fridge for a few days.

That's Gladware. Tupperware works pretty good both for storing food and for caches. But per rule #1, people generally don't properly close and seal the Turpperware.

Isn't tupperware the one where the lids somehow shrink a little making it impossible to put them on or is that rubbermaid. Honestly, I can never keep the two straight.

Edited September 15, 2014 by sbell111

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I replaced a cache a few months ago. It was 12 years old and the owner had passed away. His brother was maintaining the online part, but did not geocache. The container was cracked, but I rescued the original logbook and placed it in a new lock n lock on my second or third visit. The COs brother sent me a nice note, thanking me. Throwdown? I don't think so. That's visiting and looking for 5 minutes before dropping a disposable cost free container at GZ. In these cases nobody seems to own them. In my case, likely the COs brother does, although I'm watching it and accepting responsibility.

[+tozainamboku]

About the 90% argument...

 

If 90% of the people would start stealing, would you do it also?

 

Com`on... haven´t you got better arguments?

Haven't you got better arguments?

 

You may be comparing leaving a throwdown to stealing because you have a definition of the online found it log that considers using it when you haven't found the actual cache that the CO hid as "stealing" a WIGAS point.

 

My guess is far more than 10% of geocachers share this view when it comes to their own online logs. Even many who leave throwdowns seem somewhat conflicted about logging a find (many will actually ask the cache owner if it is OK to log a find before they do so).

 

I think the issue is that 90%+ of cache owners wear underwear that fits. They realize that the definition of when it is OK to log an online find varies and that the online find is not a score. They accept some uses of the online find log by others that they would not engage in themselves. The other 10% of cache owner may get their knickers in a twist over some triviality like an online log that is only a small part of the game. If a cache owner wants to accept the throwdown as help with maintenance of their cache, they simply don't get upset that the person leaving the throwdown has logged a find. Then there are the people who are not the cache owners who allows the throwdow and find, who let their knickers get bunched up and declare in the forum that the game is full of thieves and people who invite thieves. They account for maybe 1% of players but are certainly among the most vocal participants in the forums.

Edited September 16, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

About the 90% argument...

 

If 90% of the people would start stealing, would you do it also?

 

Com`on... haven´t you got better arguments?

Haven't you got better arguments?

 

You may be comparing leaving a throwdown to stealing because you have a definition of the online found it log that considers using it when you haven't found the actual cache that the CO hid as "stealing" a WIGAS point.

When did schools stop teaching students about analogies?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Well, I replaced a cache a few months ago. It was 12 years old and the owner had passed away. His brother was maintaining the online part, but did not geocache. The container was cracked, but I rescued the original logbook and placed it in a new lock n lock on my second or third visit. The COs brother sent me a nice note, thanking me. Throwdown? I don't think so. That's visiting and looking for 5 minutes before dropping a disposable cost free container at GZ. In these cases nobody seems to own them. In my case, likely the COs brother does, although I'm watching it and accepting responsibility.

 

Exactly.....this is what I've always done. I think the key thing is the ORIGINAL container was FOUND but it was also damaged and would no longer function as a cache container.

IMO " throwdown " is when a cache container IS NOT found and you place a container at GZ.

What's described above is simply cache maintenance.

[+Ben0w]

Throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

(Properly placing a replacement cache after contacting the cache owner and getting his/her explicit permission is not a throwdown. All other is.)

[+tozainamboku]

Throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

Why are they a bad idea? I have some ideas but I'd like to hear others.

 

Most of what I see in the forums is just "they're a bad idea" or mabye that "logging a find when you didn't really find the cache is cheating". IMO, these aren't reasons. Groundspeak has given one reason: that they frequently lead to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find. I'm not sure if this is that strong of reason to convince someone who may think that a CO deleting a find is still better than showing up at a cache to discover there is nothing to find in the first place.

 

We've seen the claim that 90%+ of cache owners think throwdowns are good idea in helping to reduce the need to make a maintenance trip to replace a missing cache. In that is the case, the reasons throwdowns are a bad idea have some ground to make up.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

Why are they a bad idea? I have some ideas but I'd like to hear others.

 

Most of what I see in the forums is just "they're a bad idea" or mabye that "logging a find when you didn't really find the cache is cheating". IMO, these aren't reasons. Groundspeak has given one reason: that they frequently lead to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find. I'm not sure if this is that strong of reason to convince someone who may think that a CO deleting a find is still better than showing up at a cache to discover there is nothing to find in the first place.

 

We've seen the claim that 90%+ of cache owners think throwdowns are good idea in helping to reduce the need to make a maintenance trip to replace a missing cache. In that is the case, the reasons throwdowns are a bad idea have some ground to make up.[/u]

 

Actually, No, we don't have any 'ground to make up'. This isn't a competition and I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

Simply put, I don't want throw-downs on my caches. I'll delete any 'find' from someone who says they left one without comment. As soon as I can get there, I'll remove it.

 

I think they're arrogant; maybe my hiding skills are just better than your finding skills today! If you think my cache is gone, tell me - I'll go look as soon as I can. That's what I signed up for.

[+JPreto]

Well, I replaced a cache a few months ago. It was 12 years old and the owner had passed away. His brother was maintaining the online part, but did not geocache. The container was cracked, but I rescued the original logbook and placed it in a new lock n lock on my second or third visit. The COs brother sent me a nice note, thanking me. Throwdown? I don't think so. That's visiting and looking for 5 minutes before dropping a disposable cost free container at GZ. In these cases nobody seems to own them. In my case, likely the COs brother does, although I'm watching it and accepting responsibility.

Have you heard that geocaching.com has very nice feature called "adopt a cache"?

 

This really seems the case of it!!!!

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I replaced a cache a few months ago. It was 12 years old and the owner had passed away. His brother was maintaining the online part, but did not geocache. The container was cracked, but I rescued the original logbook and placed it in a new lock n lock on my second or third visit. The COs brother sent me a nice note, thanking me. Throwdown? I don't think so. That's visiting and looking for 5 minutes before dropping a disposable cost free container at GZ. In these cases nobody seems to own them. In my case, likely the COs brother does, although I'm watching it and accepting responsibility.

Have you heard that geocaching.com has very nice feature called "adopt a cache"?

 

This really seems the case of it!!!!

I have adopted the cache, just not the online listing, which is not necessary.

[+jellis]

Technically most of us as COs own throw downs and litter. But I do hate when someone throws down a cache on mine without my permission. So many of my caches I go to and find my cache with a throw down nearby.

[yasmin1]

Id say the throw down is garbage and no one owns it and can be disposed of appropriately but the CO has the option to adopt the garbage as a legitimate container.

[4wheelin_fool]

Id say the throw down is garbage and no one owns it and can be disposed of appropriately but the CO has the option to adopt the garbage as a legitimate container.

 

I'd say Roman! is 100% correct.