Jump to content

A different throw down dilemma.


Recommended Posts

I would never throw down a cache so I could log a find. (I might replace one at the owner's request.) Regardless, I have found caches that I'm pretty sure we're throw-downs. Sometimes, the log sheet on a supposedly old cache will be blank or have just a few signatures. Sometimes the online log will say it's a replacement. Sometimes I will deduce that a cache is a throw-down from a series of DNFs followed by finds. Sometimes what I find is not what the cache page describes.

 

I subscribe to the rule that I'll play the game as I want and you play the game as you want. As such, sometimes I'll feel justified in logging a find on a throw-down and sometimes I won't.

 

When I elect not to claim a find, I may post a note saying that what I found probably wasn't the real cache. I don't post a DNF as that may confuse those who are ok with logging finds on throw-downs.

 

As far as throw-downs that I will log as finds, I will claim a find if the throw-down is a fair representation of what the cache probably was and the place it was probably hidden. Otherwise, I won't.

 

I'm just wondering how others handle this kind of a situation.

 

As a corollary, what do others do in the following situation: There was a cache rated at D4 because it was very cleverly disguised and hidden. However, someone broke it and as a result could not put it back as it had been. This made it very easy to find and many people logged finds. I did not realize this when I went hunting for it. I found it and signed the log. I have not logged it online.

 

How do others handle this?

Link to comment

I'll bite. How do you know the owner didn't throw down a new container? Maybe the throw-downer had the owner's permission? If you went to GZ, found a cache and signed a log, congratulations, you found the cache. Maybe the owner got sick of buying expensive containers that went missing so started using pill bottles or film cans. You just don't know. Would you rather spend an hour not finding it??? Many times I've found a cache and discovered while logging online that it was supposed to be Difficulty 4 or had a hint that didn't match what I found. This is just a hobby and diligently maintaining a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords just isn't a priority with most normal decent people. Lighten up, have fun, and leave caches a little better than you found them. That's all you can do to control other people's game. If you notice something, post a little note. Someone else might find it helpful. Cache on.

Link to comment

I would never throw down a cache so I could log a find. (I might replace one at the owner's request.) Regardless, I have found caches that I'm pretty sure we're throw-downs. Sometimes, the log sheet on a supposedly old cache will be blank or have just a few signatures. Sometimes the online log will say it's a replacement. Sometimes I will deduce that a cache is a throw-down from a series of DNFs followed by finds. Sometimes what I find is not what the cache page describes.

 

I subscribe to the rule that I'll play the game as I want and you play the game as you want. As such, sometimes I'll feel justified in logging a find on a throw-down and sometimes I won't.

 

When I elect not to claim a find, I may post a note saying that what I found probably wasn't the real cache. I don't post a DNF as that may confuse those who are ok with logging finds on throw-downs.

 

As far as throw-downs that I will log as finds, I will claim a find if the throw-down is a fair representation of what the cache probably was and the place it was probably hidden. Otherwise, I won't.

 

I'm just wondering how others handle this kind of a situation.

 

If I don't know it's a throwdown from another cacher who couldn't bear to post a DNF, I would probably just log the "found it" and move on.

 

As a corollary, what do others do in the following situation: There was a cache rated at D4 because it was very cleverly disguised and hidden. However, someone broke it and as a result could not put it back as it had been. This made it very easy to find and many people logged finds. I did not realize this when I went hunting for it. I found it and signed the log. I have not logged it online.

 

How do others handle this?

 

Uh, that's pretty straightforward: log a "Needs Maintenance" along with your "found it".

 

The cache is broken, the D4 is no longer legitimate...2 maintenance issues the cache owner needs to take care of.

 

If this has been mentioned in the "found it" logs, then the cache owner should be fully aware of the compromised cache.

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I'm against throwdowns, but the only time I worry about whether I've found one is when I have reason to suspect the original cache is still there. In any other case, I can't tell whether the throwdown is acceptable to the CO, so I take its very presence as proof that the CO accepts it and log the find no matter how skeptical I am that it actually represents the CO's will. If there's no indication in the logs of a throwdown, I'll normally make some remark in my found log to show why I doubt this is the original cache to help the CO rectify the situation if he doesn't already know about it.

 

In the case of the broken cache, I log the find without thinking about it. If there's no NM already posted, of course I'll post one in addition to logging the find.

Link to comment

I'd just log a find and move on. If I really knew for sure that the cache was not the intended one, I might drop the CO a note or make a reference to the hint not matching the container and letting the CO deal with it. Yes, throwdowns can be annoying, but generally one does not know if the last person or a recent person did it without permission. Let the CO handle it. Have had some remote caches that I know friends replaced without permission given the CO never logs on. Am not a fan of that but really, I will find better things to get involved than that.

Link to comment

I would never throw down a cache so I could log a find. (I might replace one at the owner's request.) Regardless, I have found caches that I'm pretty sure we're throw-downs. Sometimes, the log sheet on a supposedly old cache will be blank or have just a few signatures. Sometimes the online log will say it's a replacement. Sometimes I will deduce that a cache is a throw-down from a series of DNFs followed by finds. Sometimes what I find is not what the cache page describes.

 

I subscribe to the rule that I'll play the game as I want and you play the game as you want. As such, sometimes I'll feel justified in logging a find on a throw-down and sometimes I won't.

 

When I elect not to claim a find, I may post a note saying that what I found probably wasn't the real cache. I don't post a DNF as that may confuse those who are ok with logging finds on throw-downs.

 

As far as throw-downs that I will log as finds, I will claim a find if the throw-down is a fair representation of what the cache probably was and the place it was probably hidden. Otherwise, I won't.

 

I'm just wondering how others handle this kind of a situation.

 

An interesting dilemma and one that I will likely encounter in April. I'll be visiting a country which has a small number of caches and there is exactly 1 cache in the town I'll be visiting. I put it on my watch list a couple of weeks ago and noticed last week that a group of cachers from Germany logged it as found after one of them threw down a replacement (and mentioned it in their log). In this case, the throw-down *is* a fair representation of what was originally hidden and while I don't think the throw-downer asked first I suspect that the CO would be fine with the replacement. There's a possibility that I will be spending the night in a bigger city where there are a few more caches (but still just a handful), but that cache might be the only opportunity for me to find a cache in this country.

 

As I see it, whether or not one can/should log a find on a cache is a contract between the cache owner and the person submitting the found it log. If the CO doesn't care if someone logs a found on a replacement cache then I don't see why it's really anyone elses business.

Link to comment

This is just a hobby and diligently maintaining a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords just isn't a priority with most normal decent people.

 

Inferring that anyone who diligently maintains a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords is an abnormal and indecent person :blink:

 

Wow! :huh:

 

Is that what I said? Wow! :huh:

Link to comment

I'd just log a find and move on. If I really knew for sure that the cache was not the intended one, I might drop the CO a note or make a reference to the hint not matching the container and letting the CO deal with it. Yes, throwdowns can be annoying, but generally one does not know if the last person or a recent person did it without permission. Let the CO handle it. Have had some remote caches that I know friends replaced without permission given the CO never logs on. Am not a fan of that but really, I will find better things to get involved than that.

+1 I will remove any throwdowns on any of my hides. I will also delete the log for the person who left the throwdown, if the original is still there. Anyone else who signs the throwdown their find stands.

Link to comment

I'm against throwdowns, but the only time I worry about whether I've found one is when I have reason to suspect the original cache is still there. In any other case, I can't tell whether the throwdown is acceptable to the CO, so I take its very presence as proof that the CO accepts it and log the find no matter how skeptical I am that it actually represents the CO's will. If there's no indication in the logs of a throwdown, I'll normally make some remark in my found log to show why I doubt this is the original cache to help the CO rectify the situation if he doesn't already know about it.

 

In the case of the broken cache, I log the find without thinking about it. If there's no NM already posted, of course I'll post one in addition to logging the find.

This. All of it.

Link to comment

I'd just log a find and move on. If I really knew for sure that the cache was not the intended one, I might drop the CO a note or make a reference to the hint not matching the container and letting the CO deal with it. Yes, throwdowns can be annoying, but generally one does not know if the last person or a recent person did it without permission. Let the CO handle it. Have had some remote caches that I know friends replaced without permission given the CO never logs on. Am not a fan of that but really, I will find better things to get involved than that.

+1 I will remove any throwdowns on any of my hides. I will also delete the log for the person who left the throwdown, if the original is still there. Anyone else who signs the throwdown their find stands.

 

On a cache of mine, i'd delete whether the original was there or not. ;)

Link to comment

If I find a container at GZ, I log a find. It doesn't bother me if it's the original or a throwdown. I can't control if the cache went missing and someone tossed another container down. If it's supposed to be an ammo can and ends up being a film can, I'll mention that in my log and then it's up to the CO to fix, or not.

 

If I find a broken container, I log a NM plus a find. Seems pretty simple.

Link to comment

 

An interesting dilemma and one that I will likely encounter in April. I'll be visiting a country which has a small number of caches and there is exactly 1 cache in the town I'll be visiting. I put it on my watch list a couple of weeks ago and noticed last week that a group of cachers from Germany logged it as found after one of them threw down a replacement (and mentioned it in their log). In this case, the throw-down *is* a fair representation of what was originally hidden and while I don't think the throw-downer asked first I suspect that the CO would be fine with the replacement. There's a possibility that I will be spending the night in a bigger city where there are a few more caches (but still just a handful), but that cache might be the only opportunity for me to find a cache in this country.

 

As I see it, whether or not one can/should log a find on a cache is a contract between the cache owner and the person submitting the found it log. If the CO doesn't care if someone logs a found on a replacement cache then I don't see why it's really anyone elses business.

 

I've been through something similar to NYPC - http://coord.info/GC47T4X only cache for miles, new country (and furthest S by a long way), cache evidently AWOL - inexperienced CO. I Threw Down. The case against: it's not a great zone for a cache - beach BBQ spot; CO probably never going to maintain; it's a Throwdown, end of (and terribly self-indulgent of me). The case for: see thank-you note from CO; it WAS in the right place and a similar size of container; a lot of people have been able to enjoy the cache since. My conscience is clear - and made clearer by NYPC's thoughts above.

2018 we'll be back in Brazil and the furthest S should be extended to Curitiba...

Link to comment

This is just a hobby and diligently maintaining a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords just isn't a priority with most normal decent people.

 

Inferring that anyone who diligently maintains a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords is an abnormal and indecent person :blink:

 

Wow! :huh:

 

Is that what I said? Wow! :huh:

 

This looks like a twenty pager to me - I'm out :laughing:

 

That's what you said. Wow! ;)

Link to comment

This is just a hobby and diligently maintaining a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords just isn't a priority with most normal decent people.

 

Inferring that anyone who diligently maintains a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords is an abnormal and indecent person :blink:

 

Wow! :huh:

 

Is that what I said? Wow! :huh:

 

This looks like a twenty pager to me - I'm out :laughing:

 

That's what you said. Wow! ;)

 

I know, but I like to fight nonsense like Batman fights crime, and once the dramatic orchestral music starts up in my head I can't resist :ph34r:

 

I'm still doing more caching than posting though - so I think I'm OK :lol:

Link to comment

As a corollary, what do others do in the following situation: There was a cache rated at D4 because it was very cleverly disguised and hidden. However, someone broke it and as a result could not put it back as it had been. This made it very easy to find and many people logged finds. I did not realize this when I went hunting for it. I found it and signed the log. I have not logged it online.

 

How do others handle this?

 

I would definitely log it- I found it. If I kept track of the stats of my finds I probably wouldn't claim it as a D4- probably wouldn't claim it at all on my stats charts. (Also log a needs maintenance)

Link to comment

It doesn't seem like a good idea to replace a cache unless you know the owner and will be talking to him about it. It seems better to log a needs maintenance or needs archiving. Hopefully this will get the owner out there to take a look at it- a throwdown may not reflect the owners original intent for the hide.

Link to comment

If I find a container at GZ, I log a find. It doesn't bother me if it's the original or a throwdown. I can't control if the cache went missing and someone tossed another container down. If it's supposed to be an ammo can and ends up being a film can, I'll mention that in my log and then it's up to the CO to fix, or not.

 

If I find a broken container, I log a NM plus a find. Seems pretty simple.

 

It's pretty simple for me as well. For me though, it would be a DNF if i somehow found out the container i logged was a throwdown. For instances, reading the throwdown log itself or if the CO contacted me saying that i didn't find the container that he actually placed.

Link to comment

If I find a container at GZ, I log a find. It doesn't bother me if it's the original or a throwdown. I can't control if the cache went missing and someone tossed another container down. If it's supposed to be an ammo can and ends up being a film can, I'll mention that in my log and then it's up to the CO to fix, or not.

 

If I find a broken container, I log a NM plus a find. Seems pretty simple.

 

It's pretty simple for me as well. For me though, it would be a DNF if i somehow found out the container i logged was a throwdown. For instances, reading the throwdown log itself or if the CO contacted me saying that i didn't find the container that he actually placed.

 

I know it does seem pretty simple, but some might handle things a bit different depending our their definition of a throwdown.

 

If someone can't find a cache and places a new container at the location without the owners prior approval most would call that a throwdown.

 

Is it still a throwdown if they don't log a find or don't mention placing a new container at the location?

 

Is it still a throwdown if the cache is placed and the CO subsequently approves the new container? If the CO doesn't approve the new container, it would be quite understandable if that CO deleted any found it logs on the new container.

 

Does it make a difference if the original container is actually still there?

 

 

 

Link to comment

It's pretty simple for me as well. For me though, it would be a DNF if i somehow found out the container i logged was a throwdown. For instances, reading the throwdown log itself or if the CO contacted me saying that i didn't find the container that he actually placed.

As I've already mentioned, I wouldn't myself worry about whether what I found was a throwdown, but I do agree it's perfectly reasonable for a CO to reject a throwdown find even when the original container really was missing. I myself wouldn't be that strict, but I don't mind someone else unconditionally rejecting throwdown caches.

Link to comment

We have a local group of cachers who get together and put out lots of power trails and a some sizeable geo art things. They generally use preforms, and over time, as those break/disappear, others throw down many different, usually cheap, containers. The worst are those who throw down Aleve bottles--what a pain those are to get the log out of.

Link to comment

It's pretty simple for me as well. For me though, it would be a DNF if i somehow found out the container i logged was a throwdown. For instances, reading the throwdown log itself or if the CO contacted me saying that i didn't find the container that he actually placed.

As I've already mentioned, I wouldn't myself worry about whether what I found was a throwdown, but I do agree it's perfectly reasonable for a CO to reject a throwdown find even when the original container really was missing. I myself wouldn't be that strict, but I don't mind someone else unconditionally rejecting throwdown caches.

 

Like you, i don't come up to a cache and begin worrying if the container i find is a throwdown or not. If it has a log to sign, i sign and call it good. I should have said above, if i found out later on that a container i found was a throwdown, that i would change my find log to a dnf log because i would know then that i did not find the cache i was supposed to have found.

Link to comment

We have a local group of cachers who get together and put out lots of power trails and a some sizeable geo art things. They generally use preforms, and over time, as those break/disappear, others throw down many different, usually cheap, containers. The worst are those who throw down Aleve bottles--what a pain those are to get the log out of.

 

I'm sorry for your loss.

Link to comment

If I find a cache and sign the log, I'll log it as a find. I don't generally think about (or know) if it is a throwdown or not.

 

With your "broken" D4 example: If it is something like a puzzle container which should be hard to open (hence the D4), but that part is broken (making it easy), and the container inside and log are fine, I would log it as found. I found it. I don't see D ratings as a question of "deserving" it or not. Yes, until the puzzle box is fixed the D rating is no longer correct, but that isn't going to worry me.

Link to comment

I would never throw down a cache so I could log a find. (I might replace one at the owner's request.) Regardless, I have found caches that I'm pretty sure we're throw-downs. Sometimes, the log sheet on a supposedly old cache will be blank or have just a few signatures. Sometimes the online log will say it's a replacement. Sometimes I will deduce that a cache is a throw-down from a series of DNFs followed by finds. Sometimes what I find is not what the cache page describes.

 

I subscribe to the rule that I'll play the game as I want and you play the game as you want. As such, sometimes I'll feel justified in logging a find on a throw-down and sometimes I won't.

 

When I elect not to claim a find, I may post a note saying that what I found probably wasn't the real cache. I don't post a DNF as that may confuse those who are ok with logging finds on throw-downs.

 

As far as throw-downs that I will log as finds, I will claim a find if the throw-down is a fair representation of what the cache probably was and the place it was probably hidden. Otherwise, I won't.

 

I'm just wondering how others handle this kind of a situation.

 

If I don't know it's a throwdown from another cacher who couldn't bear to post a DNF, I would probably just log the "found it" and move on.

 

As a corollary, what do others do in the following situation: There was a cache rated at D4 because it was very cleverly disguised and hidden. However, someone broke it and as a result could not put it back as it had been. This made it very easy to find and many people logged finds. I did not realize this when I went hunting for it. I found it and signed the log. I have not logged it online.

 

How do others handle this?

 

Uh, that's pretty straightforward: log a "Needs Maintenance" along with your "found it".

 

The cache is broken, the D4 is no longer legitimate...2 maintenance issues the cache owner needs to take care of.

 

If this has been mentioned in the "found it" logs, then the cache owner should be fully aware of the compromised cache.

 

B.

 

I think Pup Patrol hit it on the head. If there's any question regarding the cache, the owner should be all over it.

 

A few months ago I started a series of micro caches. All the containers were of a specific type so I knew what I was looking for. One in the series had some logs mentioning a "replacement" container that was different from the original. The problem here was that after a few "replacement" finds a few cachers claimed to find the original container. When I searched I could only find the replacement. I logged it as a DNF.

 

The cache owner has allowed the replacement to remain, causing all kinds of confusion. Verify that the original is still in place and remove the other container. Post a maintenance log. Problem solved.

 

I'm sure, at some point, I've logged finds on replacement containers and didn't even realize it. Don't assume what you found was a replacement. If you went to ground zero and found something with a log in it, it's good as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment

We have a local group of cachers who get together and put out lots of power trails and a some sizeable geo art things. They generally use preforms, and over time, as those break/disappear, others throw down many different, usually cheap, containers. The worst are those who throw down Aleve bottles--what a pain those are to get the log out of.

 

I'm sorry for your loss.

Ok, thanks for the cryptic comment.

Link to comment

This is just a hobby and diligently maintaining a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords just isn't a priority with most normal decent people.

 

Inferring that anyone who diligently maintains a pristine cache with a perfect description and coords is an abnormal and indecent person :blink:

 

Wow! :huh:

 

Is that what I said? Wow! :huh:

 

This looks like a twenty pager to me - I'm out :laughing:

 

That's what you said. Wow! ;)

 

I know, but I like to fight nonsense like Batman fights crime, and once the dramatic orchestral music starts up in my head I can't resist :ph34r:

 

I'm still doing more caching than posting though - so I think I'm OK :lol:

 

It's been years since I've posted that my find count was greater than my post count, glad to see someone else taking up the torch. :D

And that was years before the introduction of power trails which make it sooo much easier now.

Link to comment

Too heavy for me, suspected throw down needs maintenance as it is not the owners cache anymore, if it has been clearly muggled, NM required. If you didn't place the cache then you have no right to it or throw down one, place a NM. If there is a heap of DNF, place on your watch list and if it turns up again as a DNF post a NA.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...