Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

[cezanne]

Over here in Germany we see that a bit different. For us an event can be way more than just MEETING people. An event can have a special reason why it takes place. And guess what, there were some where it's really hard to attend! We had some events where the intent was to eat some crazy stuff like this:

 

Surstömming

 

Believe me, EATING this is really close to D5! And we usually only accept(ed) ATTENDED logs from people who ATTENDED EATING what was served.

 

Another odd example of "It's how we do it over here" demonstrating the inconsistency of the game. Just because something is common practice regionally does it mean that it is correct. See the "you don't need a logbook at an event" example where some mandate it, and others do not. And yet, Groundspeak has spoken, and the logbook doesn't really matter anymore.

 

It is obvious that according to the current guidelines the event organizer needs to allow all sorts of attended logs. It's a different type of thing whether this is keeping up with the spirit of an event idea. I would feel very ashamed to log an attended log for an event where I did not take part according to the spirit of the event.

 

I did a cache on foot for which the owner wishes visits only by MTBs and signed the log book, but only wrote a note. If I had logged a found it, the owner could not have deleted it, but it would not have felt ok to me to log a find in that situation.

 

I feel insulted by the frequent comments that make seem that cachers from German speaking countries do not care about the guidelines. Groundspeak's guidelines and my personal geocaching ethics

are two pairs of shoes.

 

The current event guidelines need to be accepted, but this does not mean that one needs to appreciate them. Many nice events will not take part because of the new guidelines and those who

just want to chat and log an attended log still would have enough events to visit if also other types of events existed. Geocachers interested into more flexibility for events should seriously consider other listing sites.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Touchstone]

Geocachers interested into more flexibilityAdditional Logging Requirements for events should seriously consider other listing sites.

 

Fixed it. I couldn't agree more. Eating challenge Listings that purposely exclude people from Logging an Attended log belong someplace else.

[+narcissa]

Why is Germany always at the forefront when it comes to things that entirely miss the point of geocaching?

[cezanne]

Why is Germany always at the forefront when it comes to things that entirely miss the point of geocaching?

 

The eating example is certainly not the best example. In my opinion, however, a joint even hike where the event consists of the event and not visiting the meeting point for a few minutes is much or sitting around and eating and drinking for hours is much closer to the point of geocaching than those events that the new guidelines treat favourably. Hiking is closing to geocaching in my eyes than eating.

 

Events which are based on special ideas existed all over Europe - e.g. some type of extreme event challenge has been very popular in the Czech republic where many more non standard events existed than in Germany. So it's not at all an issue of Germany, or the German language.

 

What certainly might play a role is that the idea to be as inclusive as possible and to adapt concepts to make anyone feel as welcome and happy as possible is not something which is common in continental European thinking.

 

I'm not sure if ever someone would hide a Wherigo in North America which requires the visitors to run or skate a certain course within a very competitive time. The special feeling of offering challenges and awards for those who manage certain accomplishments is certainly more important within geocaching in many European countries than in North America. The observations made by the creator of procecjt-gc about the high level of competiveness of geocaching in Europe (in particular in countries like the Czech republic and Germany) also support this hypothesis.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Geocachers interested into more flexibilityAdditional Logging Requirements for events should seriously consider other listing sites.

 

Fixed it. I couldn't agree more. Eating challenge Listings that purposely exclude people from Logging an Attended log belong someplace else.

 

It's not about additional logging requirements. I just think that places where people who are not liking a certain idea (in my personal opinion, the idea behind that eating challenge is plain stupid) stay away and do not enforce their right to log an attended log.

 

A lot of geocaching is about purposefully excluding people and that is nothing bad in itself in my opinion.

Edited January 14, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

Geocachers interested into more flexibilityAdditional Logging Requirements for events should seriously consider other listing sites.

 

Fixed it. I couldn't agree more. Eating challenge Listings that purposely exclude people from Logging an Attended log belong someplace else.

 

It's not about additional logging requirements. I just think that places where people who are not liking a certain idea (in my personal opinion, the idea behind that eating challenge is plain stupid) stay away and do not enforce their right to log an attended log.

 

A lot of geocaching is about purposefully excluding people and that is nothing bad in itself in my opinion.

Whuuuuuuuuut?

 

Don't confuse herd behavior with common practice with the guidelines. Just because the people you are familiar with follow the same idea doesn't mean it is how the game is handled at the fundamental level.

 

You say a hike can be the most important factor of the event where a hike is undertaken. Well...perhaps preferentially, but not required according to the guidelines. If you need to hike to get to the event site, then it is not compulsory for attendance beyond overcoming the Terrain Rating--it might automatically weed out those who don't want to hike up a mountain or hill to get to an event.

 

So, if an eating challenge is part of an event, there's nothing in the guidelines that allows for exclusion. If you're there at the event, you can log an "attended", even if you didn't eat the rotten fish. Same goes for an event at a site that then undertakes a hike--if someone shows up at the event coordinates, they have attended the event according to the guidelines. Now, if you want to "exclude" people, then you put the event at your mid-point versus the trailhead; that will "weed out" those not wanting to traverse the elevated T rating cache you've created.

 

A Wherigo like you describe above is certainly something that could be created here, and likely just hasn't been an idea someone had thought of yet. In fact, there's nothing saying that I couldn't go place a Wherigo of that sort right now on the ski trails we have here in Homer, Alaska. But that's not the point--we're talking about things that are against the guidelines of the game on Geocaching.com. "Excluding" people's legitimate finds or "Attended" logs for events they were present at is against the guidelines; an appeal will always go to the logger of the find/Attended if they completed the fundamental task of finding the cache and signing the log, or showing up at coordinates at the set time of an event.

 

Again, just because your friend, your friends, your community, your country, or your region in Europe might all treat events or caches like that does not make it correct against the guidelines. Simply because you've all adapted to a more stringent application of community-based guidelines does not change the basement-level fundamental guidelines set out by Groundspeak--you can't override their veto. And yet you still insist on creating caches that exclude or limit, or simply would not stand up against the essential guidelines set out by Groundspeak for Geocaching.com. Greetings from Germany, indeed...

Edited January 14, 2015 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

Geocachers interested into more flexibilityAdditional Logging Requirements for events should seriously consider other listing sites.

 

Fixed it. I couldn't agree more. Eating challenge Listings that purposely exclude people from Logging an Attended log belong someplace else.

 

It's not about additional logging requirements. I just think that places where people who are not liking a certain idea (in my personal opinion, the idea behind that eating challenge is plain stupid) stay away and do not enforce their right to log an attended log.

 

A lot of geocaching is about purposefully excluding people and that is nothing bad in itself in my opinion.

Whuuuuuuuuut?

 

Don't confuse herd behavior with common practice with the guidelines. Just because the people you are familiar with follow the same idea doesn't mean it is how the game is handled at the fundamental level.

 

I did not confuse anything. First, my statement above was general and not specifically targeted on events.

Second, I did not write anything about violating the guidelines.

 

One can hide/set up caches with the purposeful idea of excluding certain groups as key element of the cache and can end up with a perfectly legitimate cache.

 

 

You say a hike can be the most important factor of the event where a hike is undertaken. Well...perhaps preferentially, but not required according to the guidelines.

 

I never said that the current guidelines can require it for an attended log.

 

When I mentioned the alternative of moving such events to other platforms, what I had in mind was not introducing ALRs there into the cache listing, but just rely that outside of the world of gc.com found it and attended logs just for the sake of logging and because they are legitimate do hardly exist.

 

 

So, if an eating challenge is part of an event, there's nothing in the guidelines that allows for exclusion. If you're there at the event, you can log an "attended", even if you didn't eat the rotten fish.

 

Yes, one can log such an attend, but should feel ashamed in my personal point of view. There are no guidelines for my personal opinion.

 

A Wherigo like you describe above is certainly something that could be created here, and likely just hasn't been an idea someone had thought of yet. In fact, there's nothing saying that I couldn't go place a Wherigo of that sort right now on the ski trails we have here in Homer, Alaska.

 

I do not know how fit you are and whether you would purposefully choose the time limit such that only very, very few can meet it (intentionally).

 

But that's not the point--we're talking about things that are against the guidelines of the game on Geocaching.com. "Excluding" people's legitimate finds or "Attended" logs for events they were present at is against the guidelines; an appeal will always go to the logger of the find/Attended if they completed the fundamental task of finding the cache and signing the log, or showing up at coordinates at the set time of an event.

 

As I did not defend log deletions in such cases and said right away that such logs are legitimate, I do not agree with what you write above. My point was that being inclusive and welcome everyone at every cache/event is nothing the guidelines ask for. Allowing found it/attended logs when someone does not take part is something required by the guidelines, warmly welcoming those who do not take part is not part of the guidelines.

 

You cannot keep me from thinking that event logs without taking part in the key activity are equally lame than logging tree climbing caches without having climbed to the container or mystery caches when having just obtained the solution. The owners of such caches cannot delete found it logs if the log book is signed, but like in the event case they can be of the opinion that such logs are incredibly lame.

 

Groundspeak can come up with whatever guidelines they want on their caching site, they cannot enforce however that everyone will share their opinion about what's in the true spirit of geocaching, events etc.

[+narcissa]

Why is Germany always at the forefront when it comes to things that entirely miss the point of geocaching?

 

The eating example is certainly not the best example. In my opinion, however, a joint even hike where the event consists of the event and not visiting the meeting point for a few minutes is much or sitting around and eating and drinking for hours is much closer to the point of geocaching than those events that the new guidelines treat favourably. Hiking is closing to geocaching in my eyes than eating.

 

Given how often you complain that there aren't enough hiking geocaches, this isn't rational.

[cezanne]

Given how often you complain that there aren't enough hiking geocaches, this isn't rational.

 

Maybe you were misled by the fact that my statement above that I did not proofread ended up mingled.

 

I wrote somewhere else that from my personal point of the event about eating rodden fish is a stupid idea and that the specific example chosen

might not the best.

 

I do think however that many of the events that could take place for years where the official part of the event was an activity

other than sitting around and eating and drinking fits my idea of what geocaching is about much more than the typical meet and greet events

which in my opinion have no connection to geocaching at all except that cachers meet there.

 

The fact that I like hiking geocaches, does not provide me with the slightest reason to prefer the new type of events where

the hike is the side activity and the event is standing/sitting around.

 

My personal idea of a geocaching event is certainly neither learning to know new geocachers nor explaining geocaching to someone else.

I respect that you and others have different ideas about what makes events attractive.

[+NeverSummer]

 

So, if an eating challenge is part of an event, there's nothing in the guidelines that allows for exclusion. If you're there at the event, you can log an "attended", even if you didn't eat the rotten fish.

 

Yes, one can log such an attend, but should feel ashamed in my personal point of view. There are no guidelines for my personal opinion.

Shaming people for playing the game according to the guidelines, or as you'd call it, "the way they prefer". Hmmm... How wonderful a community that must be, to be shamed for not following an ALR. That's a cultural ideal I'm glad we don't have around here...

 

But that's not the point--we're talking about things that are against the guidelines of the game on Geocaching.com. "Excluding" people's legitimate finds or "Attended" logs for events they were present at is against the guidelines; an appeal will always go to the logger of the find/Attended if they completed the fundamental task of finding the cache and signing the log, or showing up at coordinates at the set time of an event.

 

As I did not defend log deletions in such cases and said right away that such logs are legitimate, I do not agree with what you write above. My point was that being inclusive and welcome everyone at every cache/event (1)is nothing the guidelines ask for. Allowing found it/attended logs when someone does not take part is something required by the guidelines, (2)warmly welcoming those who do not take part is not part of the guidelines.

 

(3)You cannot keep me from thinking that event logs without taking part in the key activity are equally lame than logging tree climbing caches without having climbed to the container or mystery caches when having just obtained the solution. The owners of such caches cannot delete found it logs if the log book is signed, but like in the event case they can be of the opinion that such logs are incredibly lame.

 

Groundspeak can come up with whatever guidelines they want on their caching site, (4)they cannot enforce however that everyone will share their opinion about what's in the true spirit of geocaching, events etc.

1. Not in such a way, no. But the Guidelines certainly do not allow you to exclude or delete the logs from someone who attended a stinky-fish eating event who did not eat the stinky fish. But shaming those who do not eat the fish is...well, apparently a cultural thing. (?)

 

2. So being a jerk to someone who "does not take part" is a fantastic example of how your "community" is absolute bunk and should check their attitude to be a tad more welcoming... Just maybe?

 

3. And you can't keep me from seeing your attitude and thinking it completely troubling (to put it lightly), and something that I wish were not part of this normally welcoming, friendly, and accommodating community I'm used to in the USA.

 

4. You're right. Groundspeak cannot keep one from being a jerk. If one's friend, friends, neighborhood, city, country, or region is filled with jerks, there's nothing they can do about it. But it is sad to hear a confirmation that there are large communities that aberrate from the normally welcoming, friendly, and helpful communities I've found in my caching exploits in the United States and Canada.

 

Personally I hope you'll take your cantankerous bunch of shamers to a different website to play the game I'd like to think of as welcoming, helpful, supportive, and fun. What you've described as the norm where you're from really falls off from what I think most agree is the spirit of the game. Kindly take your attitude and exclusive behavior elsewhere if you can.

Edited January 14, 2015 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

1. Not in such a way, no. But the Guidelines certainly do not allow you to exclude or delete the logs from someone who attended a stinky-fish eating event who did not eat the stinky fish. But shaming those who do not eat the fish is...well, apparently a cultural thing. (?)

 

To clarify not shaming those who do not eat fish, but shaming those who visit such an event which is about eating rodden fish and writing an attended log even though they did not take part.

 

For example this is a by now classical event in Vienna taking place to welcome the new year in a special way.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5EPAC_neujahrsschwimmen?guid=443affaa-8e21-4d1d-bd5a-518fd1085a5c

The idea is to swim out to a platform in the really cold water.

 

There are event visitors who do not take part in the task the event is about. One group of them is writing attended logs (which of course are not deleted - so everything is perfectly fine with respect to the guidelines) and one group is just writing notes. I appreciate the behaviour of the latter group and regard what the first group is doing as very lame and not at all conforming with the spirit of such an event.

 

Directly after this event a meet and greet takes place which is within reach of everyone. There is definitely no need at all to log an attended log for the first event when not taking part in the very challenging activity. I would not dare to go for that platform even in Summer.

 

I'm anything else than a competitive cacher and there are many things in life I'm excluded from. I do not think that everything needs to be for everyone. I do not think that it is a matter of respect for each other and of being a friendly community to enforce logs against the underlying spirit (this is not a guideline issue from my point of view).

 

If someone wants to watch others eat rodden fish/swim to a platform in ice cold water, this person can come and watch. You will never convince me that enforcing log types which do not match the true spirit is something which I need welcome to be a kind geocacher of the type you would like to encounter.

 

The guidelines e.g. allow placing a film container every 161m if the cache locations are free - still I regard this as lame and as against what for me makes up the spirit of geocaching. Groundspeak can enforce guidelines, but not geocachers' opinions. It is not surprising that there are certainly cultural differences involved but I think that in this regard you should also take into account that the way of behaviour which is considered as very kind and friendly in one country can put off people in other countries. This is not as one sided as you seem to make it look like. It's quite easy to endlessly blame the German geocaching community. I do not feel happy with that at all even though I'm neither German nor do I live there.

 

It's also somehow a bit strange that while you talk about a friendly and welcoming community, it's you who uses terms like jerk and other pejorative ones.

Somehow it sometimes seems to me that you are not even interested into trying to understand cultural and other differences that also influence geocaching.

Things are not done everywhere the same way and this does not mean that I think that the guidelines should be broken.

Edited January 14, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

It's quite easy to endlessly blame the German geocaching community. I do not feel happy with that at all even though I'm neither German nor do I live there.

I won't bother with the other parts of your reply; they only serve to prove my point.

 

What I will respond to is this part of your reply. I want to clarify my use of the phrase, "Greetings from Germany!" I'm using it as a new vernacular phrase that exemplifies behaviors that bend or break guidelines, or actions that seem bred within a specific community within this game. I'm neither saying you're German, nor that you reside there. What I am saying is that the armchair logs and other behaviors that have become seemingly ubiquitous with German geocachers are akin to another community adopting shaming behaviors when someone does something they believe is "lame".

 

It's one thing to personally feel that way, that not participating in the "intended way" is "lame", but to see that it is a community-accepted behavior is troubling--and I think and downright lame itself.

 

You can justify your behavior and attitude any way you want, including claiming that being accepting and following the fundamentals and guidelines is lame. I have no problem with you having that attitude personally. In fact, I know plenty of people in the USA that would think not participating in the way desired at an event is lame, or that a power trail of film pots is lame. (You don't have to search too hard to find examples of the latter...)

 

What I have a problem with is the apparent systematic community disregard for the guidelines and they systematic and community-accepted behavior of shunning, shaming, or purposefully excluding people.

[+NeverSummer]

It's also somehow a bit strange that while you talk about a friendly and welcoming community, it's you who uses terms like jerk and other pejorative ones.

Somehow it sometimes seems to me that you are not even interested into trying to understand cultural and other differences that also influence geocaching.

Things are not done everywhere the same way and this does not mean that I think that the guidelines should be broken.

 

I'm not representing a community or group of people. I'm representing my personal opinion, and do feel that acting that way is being a "jerk". I, and others, could certainly use more harsh words, but that's the second-grade, 8-year-old's informal noun of disapproval I'm going to deliberately use.

 

To be clear as well, I never once called you personally a jerk. I said that deliberately shunning or excluding people is the behavior of a "jerk". As for "other pejoratives", the word "cantankerous" was chosen deliberately to describe argumentative and uncooperative behavior. The argumentative part is clear (and you could call my actions cantankerous, and I wouldn't say you're opinion of me and use of that word would be inaccurate from your perspective), and the uncooperative part applies to the fundamental guidelines and the stringent community application of shunning and "intent for events" you outline.

 

I understand cultural differences, and yet it isn't that easy to have you see that we're talking about how we, the community of Geocaching.com, may want to try acting versus how you apply your personal or Austrian-accepted behaviors or expectations for how this game is played.

 

I'm happy to use a different word apart from "jerk" if someone can help me find an accurate synonym for a noun of disapproval describing someone or a group of people that exhibit behaviors of deliberate exclusion, public shaming, and attempted and preferred disregard for established norms (guidelines).

Edited January 14, 2015 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

It's quite easy to endlessly blame the German geocaching community. I do not feel happy with that at all even though I'm neither German nor do I live there.

 

What I will respond to is this part of your reply. I want to clarify my use of the phrase, "Greetings from Germany!" I'm using it as a new vernacular phrase that exemplifies behaviors that bend or break guidelines, or actions that seem bred within a specific community within this game. I'm neither saying you're German, nor that you reside there.

 

Of course you did not. I explained why I do not appreciate this all too frequent reference to Germany even though I'm not included.

 

 

You can justify your behavior and attitude any way you want, including claiming that being accepting and following the fundamentals and guidelines is lame.

 

I never ever said that accepting and following guidelines is lame. I'm not defending log deletions and I clearly stressed that attended logs without taking part are ok from the point of view of the guidelines. You reversed the statement. You seem to argue that if the guidelines allow an attended log, it cannot be lame to write such a log.

 

 

What I have a problem with is the apparent systematic community disregard for the guidelines and they systematic and community-accepted behavior of shunning, shaming, or purposefully excluding people.

 

The example cache I brought up can be logged as attended by everyone regardless of whether they take part in what the event is about. So once again, the guidelines are followed rigorously.

 

With a simple trick you really could turn the event into one where attended logs can be logged only by those who accomplish the task the event is about. One could move the location of the event to the platform and let the event last only for say 15 minutes. Who reached the platform in this time, can log an attended log, the others cannot.

 

The setting chosen allows those who think that an attended log is the right thing to write even without taking part, to do so.

 

I admire those who accomplish the task of reaching the platform and my belief that logging an attended without even having put effort into trying to accomplish the task is lame in my opinion. I do not want to put myself on the same level with those who manage the task which is completely out of my reach and I have a sympathy for those who feel the same way than I do.

 

I do not have an issue with arm chair logs due to the fact that they are against the guidelines, but due to my own belief.

[+NeverSummer]

It's quite easy to endlessly blame the German geocaching community. I do not feel happy with that at all even though I'm neither German nor do I live there.

 

What I will respond to is this part of your reply. I want to clarify my use of the phrase, "Greetings from Germany!" I'm using it as a new vernacular phrase that exemplifies behaviors that bend or break guidelines, or actions that seem bred within a specific community within this game. I'm neither saying you're German, nor that you reside there.

 

Of course you did not. I explained why I do not appreciate this all too frequent reference to Germany even though I'm not included.

Noted. This has caused me to rethink the use of "Greetings from Germany!" as a public way to essentially shun or shame those who do "the inappropriate or misguided things those people do" in places like Germany--or Ohio, for that matter. It does sound like a bit of a double standard, doesn't it...

 

So let me attempt to clarify in light of that realization: There is one's opinion that something someone does in this game is lame. That opinion can be personal and, with enough others who share the same view, systematic at the community level. This can be for things like nano caches, power trails, use of Mystery/Puzzle caches for geo-art, not following the specific "spirit" or intent of an event, FTF logging or claims, and more. (All you need to do is read these forums to find the newest thing that one thinks is "lame")

 

The difference between the above and what I observe you, cezanne, saying about the local, cultural, systematic acceptance of the mutually-despised practices, is that you encourage a deliberate exclusion and/or the public shunning of "lame" behavior. The problem I have is when the community you're describing has accepted and practices shunning and exclusion for something that is otherwise perfectly acceptable according to the fundamentals and guidelines of the game you're playing.

 

One can't very well change the rules of a soccer (football) game to say that a goal is only a goal if you are wearing only Nike shoes and kick with your left foot and still call it the same, universal soccer (football). That is, unless you create your own league (which I'll liken to a different website or host, perhaps, in your case?). A recreational acceptance of that scoring rule is one thing (see FTF side-game, e.g.), but to all-out shun those that decide to play the game according to the guidelines as set out by the body sanctioning (web-hosting and listing) the game is just...wrong in many ways.

 

But please, by all means, think that certain behaviors are lame. I do feel that way about some things in the game as well. But when it comes down to it, I really try to not let it affect my treatment of others, or how my interpretations or preferences might relate to the guidelines created as the basics of the game.

Edited January 14, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+narcissa]

 

I respect that you and others have different ideas about what makes events attractive.

 

We're not talking about what makes events attractive.

 

We're talking about what qualifies as an event under the guidelines.

[cezanne]

I respect that you and others have different ideas about what makes events attractive.

 

We're not talking about what makes events attractive.

 

We're talking about what qualifies as an event under the guidelines.

 

You accused the German cacher who argued why the rodden fish event in his opinion warrants a D=5* rating of entirely missing the point of geocaching.

 

The fact that one can log an attend for the eating rodden fish event without taking part into the eating does not make the event any more attractive than

in the case that only those can log an attend who accomplish the task. That holds true for all other examples along the same lines too.

 

I do not think that the guidelines define what the point of geocaching is.

 

Of course, if a reviewer requires a D=1* rating for an event, the event owner need to comply in case they want their events published. I do not think however that focusing on

those who really take part at an event in the intended way, is missing the point of geocaching.

 

The guidelines have changed over time. I do not think that changes that took place with regard to events have been made with the spirit of geocaching in mind. With regard to events the more recent changes have most probably been made to reduce the number of debates about log deletion in which Groundspeak is involved.

 

Ten years ago noone in my country would have logged an event as found it/attended without having taken part in the intended manner or when just staying at an event for 2 minutes. Those who did not want to go for a hike (just an arbitrary example) simply stayed at home. It has not yet been the time where cachers had goals like maximizing the number of different cache types per day and other goals that lead to abusing events.

 

Cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

 

Ten years ago noone in my country would have logged an event as found it/attended without having taken part in the intended manner or when just staying at an event for 2 minutes. Those who did not want to go for a hike (just an arbitrary example) simply stayed at home. It has not yet been the time where cachers had goals like maximizing the number of different cache types per day and other goals that lead to abusing events.

 

Cezanne

Care to cite that last example?

 

The point is that you're describing a situation where, in 2005, people in your area took on a preference for what event they attended and did not log as "attended " (at that time still 'Found it') if they didn't participate in the task or in the intended manner. During this time there were also some ALRs out there, and other caches which have since been discontinued. Yeah... I can see how, if you started caching in that era and in a specific way, it might be difficult to swallow the pill that is the fact one can log as "attended" if they are at the coordinates at the specified time. It's a change from "how you were raised" to play the game, perhaps.

 

Sounds like an evolution to "just being about the smiley" (or "WIGAS", if you prefer), but really it was a simple move away from ALRs and toward inclusion. I mean, there was also a time where an event could be for a "cache machine" outing, but you can't do that anymore either. I just shrug and say, "Meh..."

 

What I still have a problem with is the idea that your community (or maybe just your closest caching buddies?) would shun and shame someone who came to an event but didn't participate in the way you preferred. That's not a very welcoming or helpful attitude to have when events are really meant to be a way to gether geocachers together for an supposedly enjoyable time.

 

I could have an event where we rock climb as an activity. One doesn't have to harness up to take part. Rather, they can cheer people on, hand me my gear when I need it, or just enjoy watching people climb up a rock face for fun. They could even try out a harness and learn to belay if they don't want to climb. And, if they just choose to show up at the coordinates, give me a nod, and leave...so be it. I'm there to have fun, and don't mind one bit if someone else doesn't "participate how I'd prefer them to". I might wish they had taken part, but I have decided to take on the ideals in this game that I can have opinions and preferences, but it's the guidelines that matter in the end. I'll still try to greet everyone that bothered to show up at my silly hobby get together, and then be able to say, "Hey, it was great to see so-and-so stop by for a moment...great to meet you.." Versus shooting then sideways glances and grumbling about them when they leave. Maybe it's me, but I'd rather find ways to be positive and add people to the fold than to find ways to shame them for not eating the rotten fish, or taking the hike when they're not able.

 

That's the spirit of an event--to meet up somewhere, and happen to all be geocachers. You might be able to kid around with someone if they don't participate, but to disallow an Attended log? Shame them in a way that isn't at all welcome by that person? Then you're a bully, plain and simple.

 

Water off a duck's back, man...

 

Edit to add, and to get back on topic:

And that rock climbing event would be a D1T1

Edited January 15, 2015 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

The point is that you're describing a situation where, in 2005, people in your area took on a preference for what event they attended and did not log as "attended " (at that time still 'Found it') if they didn't participate in the task or in the intended manner.

 

You apparently misunderstood me. In early 2005 noone showed up at an event without seriously taking part.

What I wrote about showing up and logging notes started to happen much later at the time when at some events many participants did not participate in the intended manner and some of them

log "attended it" logs.

 

During this time there were also some ALRs out there, and other caches which have since been discontinued. Yeah... I can see how, if you started caching in that era and in a specific way, it might be difficult to swallow the pill that is the fact one can log as "attended" if they are at the coordinates at the specified time. It's a change from "how you were raised" to play the game, perhaps.

 

What I wrote has nothing to do with ALRs and also holds for the very early period I experienced as cacher where I did not encounter a single ALR (those showed up later).

 

What I find difficult to swallow is not that someone can log an event as attended if they are at the coordinates at the specified time, but rather that an event now is something like a point in the universe and has to have a fixed specified location and a fixed given starting and ending time (but that's another topic). In this manner the official parts of event all end up as meet and greets and no physical activity is present which I regret very much.

 

Sounds like an evolution to "just being about the smiley" (or "WIGAS", if you prefer), but really it was a simple move away from ALRs and toward inclusion.

 

Once again: I do not have an issue with the removal of ALRs.

 

Even in the times of the ALRs, I preferred if a cacher kindly asked in a cache description that the finders do something to requiring it.

Now ALRs do not exist any longer, but I still try to fulfill the wishes of a cache owner if it's manageable to me (like leaving a quote, poem etc) and not something which is unreasonable.

 

What I still have a problem with is the idea that your community (or maybe just your closest caching buddies?) would shun and shame someone who came to an event but didn't participate in the way you preferred. That's not a very welcoming or helpful attitude to have when events are really meant to be a way to gether geocachers together for an supposedly enjoyable time.

 

Apparently shaming seems to be a worse word for you than jerk - for me it's the other way around. I often feel ashamed even for things I do not have any influence on.

 

When I say that in my opinion someone should feel ashamed when writing an attended log for example for the swimming event I cited in this thread, I did not mean that I would approach one of those cachers and tell them they should not log attended logs (that's their business and such logs are allowed per the guidelines). I also would not shoot sideway glances to them.

 

Moreover, I took part only at a small number of events and I'm anything else than a typical event person. The events that I really enjoyed have all been outdoor events with a joint activity and not meet and greets which are simply not what I enjoy. So what I wrote is certainly not about "me and my closest caching buddies".

 

 

 

I could have an event where we rock climb as an activity. One doesn't have to harness up to take part. Rather, they can cheer people on, hand me my gear when I need it, or just enjoy watching people climb up a rock face for fun. They could even try out a harness and learn to belay if they don't want to climb. And, if they just choose to show up at the coordinates, give me a nod, and leave...so be it. I'm there to have fun, and don't mind one bit if someone else doesn't "participate how I'd prefer them to". I might wish they had taken part, but I have decided to take on the ideals in this game that I can have opinions and preferences, but it's the guidelines that matter in the end.

 

The guidelines matter for what is allowed as a log. For my opinions and preferences they do not matter at all and what I wrote here was about opinions and not about the guidelines which are very clear with respect to attended logs for events.

 

The rock climbing event might not the best example as in that case such an event is not that much harmed by the new guidelines. It will still be the same fun for those who come for rock climbing.

 

In the case of an event that has to take place at a mountain hut due to the new guidelines instead of the hike being the event, the situation is different.

Previously there has been a group hike and now everyone is hiking alone or with a small group of friends to the hut, then spends maybe at most an hour there sitting around and then the people leave separately again. That's quite unfortunate for people like me and it changes the event and the enjoyment to a large extent. It does not leave me with a single reason to attend such an event - it's not that much different from attending an urban event.

 

 

You might be able to kid around with someone if they don't participate, but to disallow an Attended log? Shame them in a way that isn't at all welcome by that person? Then you're a bully, plain and simple.

 

I neither would kid around with them nor did I support disallowing attended logs.

There are cachers who believe that everyone who uses a telephone joker for a cache should feel ashamed and I do not have an issue with their opinion.

I'm not dependent on whether others believe that I'm doing the right thing.

 

Cachers who logs an attended log for an event without taking part in the key activity know that the guidelines are on their side - they need to live with the fact that not everyone thinks that such logs comply with their geocaching ideals. The guidelines allow such logs, but they do not force anyone to write such logs.

Edited January 15, 2015 by cezanne

[+GeoLog81]

Cachers who logs an attended log for an event without taking part in the key activity know that the guidelines are on their side - they need to live with the fact that not everyone thinks that such logs comply with their geocaching ideals. The guidelines allow such logs, but they do not force anyone to write such logs.

 

No, you miss the point here.

 

The key activity of an event is to meet other geocachers. It doesn't matter what the other thinks their geocaching ideals are - the key point of the event is to meet the geocachers on the coordinates in the given time.

 

If you want to play chess or swim with other people, you're free to do that, but you don't have to register it as geocaching event. You have facebook when you are free to register any types of events you like. If you, however, register something as geocaching event, just bear the consequences that the people will handle is as such, arriving at the coordinates, saying hi and asking for logbook, not necessarily being interested in anything else as smalltalk.

[cezanne]

Cachers who logs an attended log for an event without taking part in the key activity know that the guidelines are on their side - they need to live with the fact that not everyone thinks that such logs comply with their geocaching ideals. The guidelines allow such logs, but they do not force anyone to write such logs.

 

No, you miss the point here.

 

No, I do not miss the point.

 

The key activity of an event is to meet other geocachers. It doesn't matter what the other thinks their geocaching ideals are - the key point of the event is to meet the geocachers on the coordinates in the given time.

 

With respect to the new guidelines yes. It never used however to be be restricted about meeting at fixed coordinates - moving events have been welcome also at geocaching.com for many years and geocaching also exists beyonfd this site. It is not Groundspeak who defines the spirit of geocaching.

 

 

If you want to play chess or swim with other people, you're free to do that, but you don't have to register it as geocaching event. You have facebook when you are free to register any types of events you like.

 

If I want to eat pizza with other people, I do not need to register it as geocaching event either.

 

In my eyes there is absolutely no difference in organizing a group hike for geocachers who hike from A to B and organizing a meet and greet for geocachers at the local inn with respect

to the intent of events to bring geocachers together.

 

The hike is certainly closer to what geocaching is about than eating.

 

Events count as finds and not as a separate social activity. I would expect (I know that the guidelines see it differently) than going for a hike is closer to a normal geocaching find than eating a pizza.

 

 

If you, however, register something as geocaching event, just bear the consequences that the people will handle is as such, arriving at the coordinates, saying hi and asking for logbook, not necessarily being interested in anything else as smalltalk.

 

Just a side comment: Logbook at events play no role whatsoever with respect to the guidelines.

 

Those who leave after 1 minute are interested into the log (e.g. because they wish to find many caches types during that day) and not in meeting other geocachers.

 

What I really regret is that the new guidelines do not allow any longer those events that I enjoyed the most where the event is a group hike. I prefer talking to people when walking outdoors and not when sitting around and eating instead of burning calories.

[+narcissa]

I do not think that the guidelines define what the point of geocaching is.

 

No, but they certainly help keep it in check. Sometimes, one can push the envelope a bit too far. Rotten fish indeed.

[JASTA 11]

Why is Germany always at the forefront when it comes to things that entirely miss the point of geocaching?

 

Don't let those folks over in Ohio hear that!

[+NeverSummer]

I do not think that the guidelines define what the point of geocaching is.

 

No, but they certainly help keep it in check. Sometimes, one can push the envelope a bit too far. Rotten fish indeed.

Right.

 

You may hold the opinion, cezanne, that "The hike is certainly closer to what geocaching is about than eating...", but that's not bonded truth for this game. For what the "spirit" of geocaching is, we can all agree that it is to enjoy technology in the outdoors. That's for physical geocaches since they were first listed--before the name "geocache" was even coined. Later on events came along--a construct of the very company you claim does not control the game--which were meant as a gathering of like-minded (people who geocache, and are members at geocaching.com) people.

 

So an event where you would rather hike is still fun for the hike, even if it isn't "what the event is all about". You can still meet the people you want to meet for the hike up to the mountain hut and enjoy yourself, and then enjoy the event at the hut at the designated time and coordinates.

 

What it sounds like to me is that you're projecting your opinions and expectations for what an event (or other cache type) is onto the basic aspects of the game and trying to "upgrade" them. You believe your opinions to be truth and purpose for how the game is played. You have a construct around you where your opinion guides your playing of the game, and you are likely surrounded by like-minded people, from the way you reference what is "considered lame" or discouraged for anything from Multi-caches to Event "purposes" by you and/or your cohorts.

 

What it really comes down to is you've constructed a sub-game. And, because you live in the reality of that sub-game, you have a hard time remembering the fundamentals and how they apply to others outside of your cohort. As some say, "If you tell yourself a lie enough, it becomes truth." I'd like to introduce you to cognitive dissonance, cezanne!

 

The key activity of an event is to meet other geocachers. It doesn't matter what the other thinks their geocaching ideals are - the key point of the event is to meet the geocachers on the coordinates in the given time.

 

With respect to the new guidelines yes. It never used however to be be restricted about meeting at fixed coordinates - moving events have been welcome also at geocaching.com for many years and geocaching also exists beyonfd this site. It is not Groundspeak who defines the spirit of geocaching.

Are you sure about that, cezanne? What was before was a broad guideline where people felt free to do as they pleased. As time went on, the great people at Groundspeak realized where they needed to refine the guidelines to maintain their ideal "spirit of the game". (This is where you get the "old school" approach to caching and geocaches where people "wish it could just be like it used to be" with "more freedom" and "creativity".

 

Sadly those days are gone, and we play the game by Groundspeak's rules. The common thread of the game is still there, and the common thread of events is still there. What has evolved is the gameplay, and people's opinions may not have shifted with them. Whereas years ago everyone would have, simply by herd mentality or their "spirit of the game", followed the "intent" at events or for geocaches. But what was found is that the game couldn't be played on a level, inclusive field; Groundspeak realized that, to be a successful business which leaves expansion (more users=more $$) wide open, they needed to update the guidelines to be general, yet specific. They needed to recognize that the broad and expanding user base was looking for a simple thing which the early-adopters may not have wanted or seen coming: That the game is about finding a container in the woods and keeping track of them. That events are simply a gathering of geocaching.com members (and their friends/family) at a single site at a specific time.

 

It may be against your opinion of how the game is played, but it is how it is. It may not leave you feeling validated to know that the game is different than you perceive it to be, but that's just how it is.

 

Personally, having played this game outside of Geocaching.com before joining, I still don't see any problems with the guidelines as they are today. I do miss some of the more possibilities that were available to us without the clarified guidelines and changes, but the "spirit" of the game at its core has not changed to me. I can still go outside and find things with my GPS. I can still meet up with people at an organized Geocaching.com event and have fun.

 

Again, to get back to the topic, this also applies to how D/T is "enforced" by Reviewers. I see it as a good thing that this game sees a feedback circle working to clarify the guidelines. Whereas a cache owner used to be able to put down whatever they saw fit (or created liars caches, flubbed the D/T on purpose, etc), and their caches would go on living untouched. But what users, Reviewers (who are also users, but sometimes dogs), and Lackeys recognized was that the majority of users prefer that D/T be accurate descriptors of the geocaches we seek. That consistency and accuracy makes this game more clear to more people what they can expect to encounter when they set out to find a cache, or to get to an event. This means that the tools given to us (Clayjar's rating system, the end-descriptions in the Help Center, e.g.) are of more importance to impart consistency than how caches could be rated "from the hip" in earlier years.

 

I think that, as a business, Groundspeak and the Reviewers are doing the right thing to assure that D/T combos are accurate for geocaches. The fact that those ratings are used for side-games and challenges is secondary to the intended use and application of the D/T ratings themselves. Once we can recognize that there is a hierarchy of need with how caches are rated (rated accurately, honestly, and consistently first, then apply that to the side-games once the consistency is there), we can put this worry about Reviewers "reviewing D/T" to bed. Because, really, it all comes down to trying to be more consistent, and Groundspeak hoping that their cache listings will be clear enough to all users across the entire and ever-expanding user base.

[cezanne]

You may hold the opinion, cezanne, that "The hike is certainly closer to what geocaching is about than eating...", but that's not bonded truth for this game.

 

At least also according what you write below the hike at least involves the outdoor aspect while eating pizza in a restaurant does not.

You could also use your GPS-r for the hike.

 

For what the "spirit" of geocaching is, we can all agree that it is to enjoy technology in the outdoors.

That's for physical geocaches since they were first listed--before the name "geocache" was even coined.

 

I do not make this strict distinction between events, virtuals and physical caches.

 

So an event where you would rather hike is still fun for the hike, even if it isn't "what the event is all about". You can still meet the people you want to meet for the hike up to the mountain hut and enjoy yourself, and then enjoy the event at the hut at the designated time and coordinates.

 

In theory, yes. In practice it ends up with what I described. People do the hike in small groups with their friends and people use different routes etc. Not even at the meeting point one has the chance to reliably meet certain people one would like to meet.

 

Also for non moving events, in the early years one could hardly miss a participant at an event - it did not happen that some just showed

up for a few minutes and left.

 

 

What it sounds like to me is that you're projecting your opinions and expectations for what an event (or other cache type) is onto the basic aspects of the game and trying to "upgrade" them. You believe your opinions to be truth and purpose for how the game is played.

 

I just explained why I'm unhappy with the present event situation. I did not say anything about truth.

 

It's simply a fact that there is so much I enjoyed in geocaching over many years which got lost due to changes.

 

You have a construct around you where your opinion guides your playing of the game, and you are likely surrounded by like-minded people, from the way you reference what is "considered lame" or discouraged for anything from Multi-caches to Event "purposes" by you and/or your cohorts.

 

I did not organize a single event (and I have no plans to change this) and I did not approach anyone based on their way of dealing with events. I do not belong to a cohort and

if I'm not caching alone, I go caching with 1 or at most two cachers (one being the child of the other).

 

I indeed have an opinion what I regard as lame attended log and I deeply miss some types of events that have been possible in previous years and are not possible any longer.

 

 

What it really comes down to is you've constructed a sub-game. And, because you live in the reality of that sub-game, you have a hard time remembering the fundamentals and how they apply to others outside of your cohort. As some say, "If you tell yourself a lie enough, it becomes truth." I'd like to introduce you to cognitive dissonance, cezanne!

 

I have not constructed anything. I'm just one of the very few cachers from continental Europe who happen to visit this forum at all and take part actively.

 

That the game is about finding a container in the woods and keeping track of them. That events are simply a gathering of geocaching.com members (and their friends/family) at a single site at a specific time.

 

The restriction "at a single site" is a very new one.

 

It may be against your opinion of how the game is played, but it is how it is. It may not leave you feeling validated to know that the game is different than you perceive it to be, but that's just how it is.

 

I do not have an opinion on how the game is played (apart from the fact that geocaching is not a game for me). I do have a firm opinion on the kind of geocaching (physical caches, virtuals and events) that I do enjoy and on what matches what's for me the spirit of geocaching.

 

I can still meet up with people at an organized Geocaching.com event and have fun.

 

Fine for you and maybe the reason why you can't understand what I regret and miss and why I'm disappointed about the change in the event guideline.

[+NeverSummer]

You may hold the opinion, cezanne, that "The hike is certainly closer to what geocaching is about than eating...", but that's not bonded truth for this game.

 

At least also according what you write below the hike at least involves the outdoor aspect while eating pizza in a restaurant does not.

You could also use your GPS-r for the hike.

Did you not see that I separate physical caches from events? Take a moment to read what I wrote before you respond.

 

For what the "spirit" of geocaching is, we can all agree that it is to enjoy technology in the outdoors.

That's for physical geocaches since they were first listed--before the name "geocache" was even coined.

 

I do not make this strict distinction between events, virtuals and physical caches.

How can you not?? They are different cache types! They are from different origins, and serve different purposes. You can't ignore that fact.

 

So an event where you would rather hike is still fun for the hike, even if it isn't "what the event is all about". You can still meet the people you want to meet for the hike up to the mountain hut and enjoy yourself, and then enjoy the event at the hut at the designated time and coordinates.

 

In theory, yes. In practice it ends up with what I described. People do the hike in small groups with their friends and people use different routes etc. Not even at the meeting point one has the chance to reliably meet certain people one would like to meet.

 

Also for non moving events, in the early years one could hardly miss a participant at an event - it did not happen that some just showed

up for a few minutes and left.

Oh, for the love... You can post a note to the cache page that states that people are encouraged to meet at the trailhead for a hike up to the event. Sheesh...is it that hard??

 

 

I just explained why I'm unhappy with the present event situation. I did not say anything about truth.

 

It's simply a fact that there is so much I enjoyed in geocaching over many years which got lost due to changes.

Thank you for proving my point!

 

I did not organize a single event (and I have no plans to change this) and I did not approach anyone based on their way of dealing with events. I do not belong to a cohort and

if I'm not caching alone, I go caching with 1 or at most two cachers (one being the child of the other).

 

I indeed have an opinion what I regard as lame attended log and I deeply miss some types of events that have been possible in previous years and are not possible any longer.

Oh, so you are, in fact, projecting your personal views not only on the game in general, but also on those around you (your country, your region, e.g.) which you've mentioned in this thread hold the same view that "not participating in the intended way is lame", and/or that you (and the others you claim) also shun and disapprove of logging "attended" if you don't do what was "intended". Again, thanks for proving my point!

 

That the game is about finding a container in the woods and keeping track of them. That events are simply a gathering of geocaching.com members (and their friends/family) at a single site at a specific time.

 

The restriction "at a single site" is a very new one.

No, no it's not. You could only ever post a single set of coordinates with your cache listing.

[cezanne]

At least also according what you write below the hike at least involves the outdoor aspect while eating pizza in a restaurant does not.

You could also use your GPS-r for the hike.

Did you not see that I separate physical caches from events? Take a moment to read what I wrote before you respond.

 

Don't worry - I noticed it. You make that distinction, and I do not make it.

 

How can you not?? They are different cache types! They are from different origins, and serve different purposes. You can't ignore that fact.

 

For me it does not make a difference with respect to what's for me the spirit of geocaching.

 

Oh, for the love... You can post a note to the cache page that states that people are encouraged to meet at the trailhead for a hike up to the event. Sheesh...is it that hard??

 

Are you serious?

 

The owner of an event could do that, yes. But an arbitrary participant?

 

It's simply a fact that there is so much I enjoyed in geocaching over many years which got lost due to changes.

Thank you for proving my point!

 

Which point? I never stated anything else.

 

Oh, so you are, in fact, projecting your personal views not only on the game in general, but also on those around you (your country, your region, e.g.) which you've mentioned in this thread hold the same view that "not participating in the intended way is lame", and/or that you (and the others you claim) also shun and disapprove of logging "attended" if you don't do what was "intended".

 

I never wrote anything about disapproving.

 

I do not need to project anything because unlike you I know the geocaching scene in Austria and Germany quite well both from personal experience, personal contacts and following local geocaching forums for many years.

 

 

No, no it's not. You could only ever post a single set of coordinates with your cache listing.

 

Yes, but you could start the hike or train ride or paddle trip from there and no one came up with the idea just to show up at the starting point and no one expected a given end time and no one required that the event participants stayed at the header coordinates all the time.

 

There is no reason with respect to the intent behind events to penalize events where the socializing and gathering takes place in movement from A to B and not while sitting around at A or B.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Are you serious?

 

The owner of an event could do that, yes. But an arbitrary participant?

 

Why not?? You can post a note or "Will attend" with information about your hope to gather some folks to join you for the hike up to the hut. It's as simple as that. And then, congrats, you get that hike with geocachers which you want.

 

Or is it that you wish that your "Attended" smiley were tied to the hike and not the hut event? Too bad, that's just not how it will work. But it's all in your head anyway, so you can tell yourself when you log the "Attended" that you are crediting the hike you took, not the event at the hut. Living in your own construct, I think that this is an agreeable and simple way to deal with your frustration and opinions that this should be different than the guidelines state.

 

Oh, so you are, in fact, projecting your personal views not only on the game in general, but also on those around you (your country, your region, e.g.) which you've mentioned in this thread hold the same view that "not participating in the intended way is lame", and/or that you (and the others you claim) also shun and disapprove of logging "attended" if you don't do what was "intended".

 

I never wrote anything about disapproving.

Oh, you didn't?

Allowing found it/attended logs when someone does not take part is something required by the guidelines, warmly welcoming those who do not take part is not part of the guidelines.

 

You cannot keep me from thinking that event logs without taking part in the key activity are equally lame than logging tree climbing caches without having climbed to the container or mystery caches when having just obtained the solution. The owners of such caches cannot delete found it logs if the log book is signed, but like in the event case they can be of the opinion that such logs are incredibly lame.

 

I do not need to project anything because unlike you I know the geocaching scene in Austria and Germany quite well both from personal experience, personal contacts and following local geocaching forums for many years.

We've run into this before. You're claiming to speak for everyone else in your area, and you describe behaviors that your Austrian and German cohort have adopted which are more restrictive, exclusive, and/or bully those who do not participate in the way that you prefer. Lovely. But the fact is we are playing a game on this website which is hosted and controlled by Groundspeak. If you don't like it, you can start your own hosting service for GPS stash hunting. (I've often thought that Germany would be well-served by their own version of Geocaching.com apart from the rest of the world...)

 

 

No, no it's not. You could only ever post a single set of coordinates with your cache listing.

 

Yes, but you could start the hike or train ride or paddle trip from there and no one came up with the idea just to show up at the starting point and no one expected a given end time and no one required that the event participants stayed at the header coordinates all the time.

 

There is no reason with respect to the intent behind events to penalize events where the socializing and gathering takes place in movement from A to B and not while sitting around at A or B.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

Event listings only ever had a single set of coordinates. The guidelines have been clarified that events cannot "move" (be about a hike, a paddle, or other methods which remove attendees from the area of GZ listed with the event's cache page), and that one must select a coordinate set for people to meet at during a specified time to constitute an event and for logging "Attended".

 

Again, if you want that hike, train ride, or paddle trip to be the point of the event you're attending, then put that thought in your head and go to the event. Nothing is stopping you from "Attending" and enjoying the parts you want to enjoy, or to meet and take part in the aspect of the event which you prefer.

 

Meaning, if it is a D1/T3 event where you need to hike to that hut, you can celebrate and enjoy the hike up to the hut as the personally significant part of the experience. Your enjoyment is related to the T rating of the cache, not the D rating. Congrats! You got what you wanted out of the event!

[cezanne]

Why not?? You can post a note or "Will attend" with information about your hope to gather some folks to join you for the hike up to the hut. It's as simple as that. And then, congrats, you get that hike with geocachers which you want.

 

That's pretty unrealistic both for me personally and for new cachers (even if they are extrovert and dare to write such notes).

 

In my case, I would not end up with going for the hike with the people I'd like to talk to.

 

If the hike is the official event, then there is at least some effort at least for a while to adapt the pace to slower ones. If I asked for a group hike, certainly not those

I'd like to talk to would make an offer as they are so much faster than myself. If the official part of the event is the sitting around at the hut (or somewhere else), the argument will be

if someone wants to talk to them, this someone can do that there, but I simply do not enjoy such type of situations.

 

Or is it that you wish that your "Attended" smiley were tied to the hike and not the hut event? Too bad, that's just not how it will work.

 

I do not care at all about smileys.

 

But it's all in your head anyway, so you can tell yourself when you log the "Attended" that you are crediting the hike you took, not the event at the hut. Living in your own construct, I think that this is an agreeable and simple way to deal with your frustration and opinions that this should be different than the guidelines state.

 

My frustration comes from an entirely different direction.

 

I never wrote anything about disapproving.

Oh, you didn't?

 

There is a big difference between disapproving something/someone and not warmly welcoming it/someone.

Also my statement about lame attended logs is not based on disapproving and is a weaker statement.

 

Being someone for whom attended and found it is somehow something of the type mission accomplished (that's why I

have chosen to wrote a number of notes for caches where I signed the log book), I cannot help to regard attended logs

for a 2 minute visit or a visit to a hiking event without hike as lame.

 

We've run into this before. You're claiming to speak for everyone else in your area, and you describe behaviors that your Austrian and German cohort have adopted which are more restrictive, exclusive, and/or bully those who do not participate in the way that you prefer.

 

I do not claim to speak for everyone (not even for anyone except myself) and I have often stressed that I belong to a minority. In some cases I wrote about my personal preferences and opinions (and mentioned so) and in some cases I wrote about opinions of others I got to know or felt the need to defend the German geocaching community (sometimes continental European community in other contexts) which consists of many individuals of which only a small number writes arm chair logs. Many of the attacks with respect to German cachers are unfair.

 

 

Event listings only ever had a single set of coordinates. The guidelines have been clarified that events cannot "move" (be about a hike, a paddle, or other methods which remove attendees from the area of GZ listed with the event's cache page), and that one must select a coordinate set for people to meet at during a specified time to constitute an event and for logging "Attended".

 

I see it as a change and not as a clarification.

 

Again, if you want that hike, train ride, or paddle trip to be the point of the event you're attending, then put that thought in your head and go to the event. Nothing is stopping you from "Attending" and enjoying the parts you want to enjoy, or to meet and take part in the aspect of the event which you prefer.

 

Apparently you do not understand my point. I will give up.

[+NeverSummer]

If it isn't "about the smiley", and you don't care much for the guidelines, then you can post events and caches all you want on your via listserve, website, direct mailing, social media, or semaphore for that matter.

 

Nothing is that hard to post a note or say something in your "Will attend" that encourages people to join you for the hike up, the paddle in, or the train ride after.

 

Face it, we all post caches and events here at Geocaching.com because we want to reach the largest concentrations of geocachers on the most-used listing service that this kind of game has. If we didn't care about the community or "the smiley", we'd be much more open to posting our caches and events on other sites which don't have as "restrictive" guidelines as Groundspeak has put in place.

 

There have been plenty of times where I wondered if conversations like this would lead to a "new and improved" site where people would be defecting from their membership here at Geocaching.com. Lo and behold, we've stayed here. And those that have left may still dabble here. That is to say, if you don't like how things are going here, you can go elsewhere. We're all bound to the guidelines of the game, no matter our personal history or opinions about what is "lame".

 

Cezanne, you don't have to like how the guidelines have been updated for events or D/T ratings. But if you want to participate in this community in a helpful way, you'll still see where digging in your heels on guidelines only serves to sabotage the consistency of the game that Groundspeak is trying to provide for their listing service. We're all welcome to take our toys and leave if we don't like how they run their show.

 

Me, I think the guidelines make sense, and I don't mind that consistency begins to mean giving up liberal and "free" interpretations of the gameplay here. I see the D/T ratings as a tool to help others more accurately understand what the cache will provide for an experience, and I see how using those ratings as consistently as possible is a fundamental aspect of the game. Groundspeak has given us tools and guides to rate our caches, and any plan to just say, "Forget that..." and toss the tools and guidelines in the dustbin are a disservice to the game and those who play it. This may mean that my attitude will need to adjust to accept a change in D/T definitions some day. But to look over the examples you have provided throughout this thread are simply coming across as ways for you to bend and ignore any consistent application of the guidelines because you're...what? Stubborn? Because you'd sooner shun or coyly disapprove of someone's adherence to the guidelines because it goes against your personal opinions of what is "lame"?

 

One doesn't have to like the FTF game to appreciate it. One doesn't have to approve of power trails. One doesn't have to like that Events aren't for cache outings or traveling...or that they are all D1 according to the guidelines. But it serves the game best when one can at least swallow their pride and take part in this game in a consistent and welcoming manner.

[cezanne]

If it isn't "about the smiley", and you don't care much for the guidelines, then you can post events and caches all you want on your via listserve, website, direct mailing, social media, or semaphore for that matter.

 

First, my caches are available at another caching platform too and I have used navicache in the early times, too. I even looked into terracaching, but then gave up.

Second, I'm never stated that I did not care about the guidelines at gc.com - not liking some of them, is something different.

Third, it is not about me organizing events (I'm the wrong person for doing so), but about that the events I enjoy the most do not exist any longer.

 

I'm not belonging to any group and not using social media - most of the communication meanwhile happens via private chats and closed facebook groups. Events at gc.com are my only chance to meet a certain selection of cachers I'd like to meet.

 

Nothing is that hard to post a note or say something in your "Will attend" that encourages people to join you for the hike up, the paddle in, or the train ride after.

 

I told you already about my specific problem which will not make me end up with doing the hike with those I would have liked to meet ....

 

Face it, we all post caches and events here at Geocaching.com because we want to reach the largest concentrations of geocachers on the most-used listing service that this kind of game has.

 

Actually, this is not true at all for me. Some of my caches are made intentionally more difficult or are written up in a way to somehow make them look more complicated than they are to discourage too many visits.

In 2003 it was certainly true that I was interested into reaching the full local community, but certainly not nowadays. I'd prefer to reach only a small segment of the community, but there is no way to reach them elsewhere.

 

If we didn't care about the community or "the smiley", we'd be much more open to posting our caches and events on other sites which don't have as "restrictive" guidelines as Groundspeak has put in place.

 

Personally, I'm open to that anyway. It does not help me to end up with events of the type we had in the early times.

 

The real problem I'm facing is that those in my area who are also very unhappy with how geocaching has developped could leave geocaching as they have so many alternatives while I had to stay. Those people are doing what they have done before geocaching again and they have no motivation to look at other geocaching sites. The chapter geocaching is closed for them.

 

Cezanne, you don't have to like how the guidelines have been updated for events or D/T ratings. But if you want to participate in this community in a helpful way, you'll still see where digging in your heels on guidelines only serves to sabotage the consistency of the game that Groundspeak is trying to provide for their listing service.

 

I do not think that stating that it is a pity that moving events have been made impossible and that as a consequence also the D/T rating got a different meaning, is sabotaging the consistency of the game.

[+Maingray]

*blink* I see it quite simply for events.

 

For your event to be listed, the event needs to be at the posted coordinates for at least 30 minutes. Difficulty 1 is appropriate for nearly all events, unless special circumstances exist and this will be reviewed on.

 

That is the event.

 

What you do after the event is the attendees business, and up to the CO to delete inappropriate logs.

 

edit: oops older thread. But I have seen this issue pop up recently locally.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Maingray

[+jellis]

I guess it's that time for bumping old posts.

 

Most of mine are close enough to what they need to be. I don't rate a 1 terrain unless I am sure a wheelchair can get to it.

 

Good to change if there are some rated 1 when a cacher can't get to it.

COs shouldn't change a D/T to help someone qualify for a challenge.

COs should be careful about changing D/T that those who used them for challenges don't lose them.

[+narcissa]

I guess it's that time for bumping old posts.

 

Most of mine are close enough to what they need to be. I don't rate a 1 terrain unless I am sure a wheelchair can get to it.

 

Good to change if there are some rated 1 when a cacher can't get to it.

COs shouldn't change a D/T to help someone qualify for a challenge.

COs should be careful about changing D/T that those who used them for challenges don't lose them.

 

COs should ensure that D/T ratings reflect the conditions that future finders need to be aware of. "Challenge" caches and other silly side games should not be a consideration one way or the other.

[knowschad]

I guess it's that time for bumping old posts.

 

Most of mine are close enough to what they need to be. I don't rate a 1 terrain unless I am sure a wheelchair can get to it.

 

Good to change if there are some rated 1 when a cacher can't get to it.

COs shouldn't change a D/T to help someone qualify for a challenge.

COs should be careful about changing D/T that those who used them for challenges don't lose them.

I TOTALLY disagree about your last point. If I feel my D or T rating needs to be changed, I'm gonna change it. Even if I WERE to care about the side-game, a change is just as likely to help as to hurt somebody's side game.

[+Team Microdot]

I guess it's that time for bumping old posts.

 

Most of mine are close enough to what they need to be. I don't rate a 1 terrain unless I am sure a wheelchair can get to it.

 

Good to change if there are some rated 1 when a cacher can't get to it.

COs shouldn't change a D/T to help someone qualify for a challenge.

COs should be careful about changing D/T that those who used them for challenges don't lose them.

I TOTALLY disagree about your last point. If I feel my D or T rating needs to be changed, I'm gonna change it. Even if I WERE to care about the side-game, a change is just as likely to help as to hurt somebody's side game.

 

+1

 

I don't put caches out so people can use them to qualify for challenges.

 

If the only reason someone is finding my cache is to qualify for a challenge I'd much rather they didn't bother finding my cache at all.

 

The idea that someone might think it's my duty to maintain a D/T combo just because someone happened to use my cache for a challenge only serves to reinforce my existing views.