throwdowns

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

Although to be fair, there are times when the CO cannot find his/her own cache (e.g., due to cache migration), and then the CO replaces a cache that isn't actually missing. The result is confusion from multiple containers, both/all placed by the CO.

I have found caches where this has happened, where there were multiple containers placed by the CO. And I've had to tell multiple COs where I had found their caches, because they were unable to find their own caches that I had found recently.

Something sort of like this has happened to one of my caches (GC6Y0R7). After a recent rock fall, the original container is now buried under about a tonne of rubble, but is still there. I placed a new container in a nearby spot and I doubt the original will ever be found, not in my lifetime at any rate, but it's still possible I suppose if someone was keen enough to dig it out by hand.

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

... Or you can laugh and realize that stuff happens and no harm was done.

Yup.  This.  Just trying to keep the game fun, and logs accurate, if we can.  We weren't offically "watching" his cache in #1 when that occurred, but we are now.  It's all good.   

[+thebruce0]

14 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Nothing whatsoever mentioned in the logs, and the first logger in the throwdown's logsheet - presumably the one who placed it - had just logged a "quick find".

If that's determined to be the case, and say the cache was supposed to be difficult to find, the CO would be justified in deleting the Find logs (in a considerate way of course; contact first, inform, etc) for the signatures in the wrong container. That's up to the CO.  Those people didn't find the cache, they found a throwdown.  (another reason that throwdowns, especially uncondoned, can hurt the community; it ain't the CO's fault if your log on a throwdown, even if you didn't know, gets deleted by the CO, even if it's not the kindest thing the CO can do)

 

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

#1 isn't even a throwdown 'cuz the person had permission to place it. #2 might be a throwdown, but you can't really tell. And in either case, it's more an amusing discovery that there are two containers at GZ, not some dire failure that hurts anything or matters.

In both cases, ultimately the next move is the CO's. In #1, even though the replacement had permission, strictly speaking the CO hasn't verified that the container IS actually hidden as intended. Despite perhaps talking through how it's supposed to be hidden, the CO has no 1st-hand guarantee it's correct. Even with permission, the CO should make a judgement call as to whether to visit and check the cache to verify it.  In #2, the CO should be informed of the situation of there being now two caches at gz doing some time back, and that one has just been removed - as above, the CO doesn't actually have first hand updated confirmation of the hide as they intended.
There are ways to work around - the CO could be shown video or photos of the hide as confirmation that it's hidden properly. But again, that's the CO's call.  Point is, after anyone 'fixes' the container (proxy maintenance, throwdown, etc), the CO hasn't verified it yet themselves, and ideally they should 'clear that flag' by visiting and confirming somehow (at least to the CO's satisfaction).

[+noncentric]

On 2/5/2018 at 2:43 PM, CAVinoGal said:

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but rather than start another new one, I'll just tack on to this one.

Much appreciated!

 

On 2/5/2018 at 2:43 PM, CAVinoGal said:

1. There is a cache belonging to our son, and just a couple of blocks down the road from us.  He's moved out of the area, so we keep a watch on his caches placed locally.  We had found this very cleverly hidden cache and checked it occasionally.  We were walking with our son when he came to visit and checked this cache, and noticed the last few finders were not on the log ... searched a bit and came up with another container nearby with the missing signatures (about 10 over the past month or so).  We combined the logs in the original container, he allowed the signatures (turns out the throwdown cacher had called him and asked if he could replace it cause he didn't find it and my son gave permission, not realizing the original was still there).  We made a note that the throwdown had been removed and the original (a very clever container and hide!) was still in place.  

2. We were out finding caches, and the description said a black 35mm film can - recently found, so we went looking.  Found a WHITE film can, with signatures going back to 2013.  Signed it, went to replace it, and I saw a BLACK fim can about a foot away, which had more signatures going back years - turns out the logs were jumbled with some finding the black can, some finding the white, and NO ONE realizing there were two till we came along???  No mention of DNF's in the logs, no mention of replacing, just two containers, in roughly the same location.  We put both logs in the original (black) film can and removed the white one.  Seems like even the CO was unaware there were two caches at GZ? 

In both cases, if the CO him/herself had come to investigate there would have been no confusion, and only one container at GZ.  We only have a few hides, and can easily check within a day or so if there's a DNF, and replace it ourselves or verify it is still in play.  That may change as we get more hides under our belt, but I hope not.

I would not consider example #1 to be a "throwdown", as the CO gave the cacher explicit permission to place the 2nd container. I would contend that the CO shouldn't have given permission, especially if that cacher was the first person to DNF the cache. Instead, the CO could've asked the cacher where they looked and maybe given the cacher a more specific hint to confirm that the cacher was looking in the correct place. Especially since, as you noted, the cache was hidden cleverly.

With example #2, I don't fault the CO and I don't agree that "if the CO him/herself had come to investigate there would have been no confusion". The CO could've stopped by the cache a week prior, found the black film can that they placed, and thought their cache was in fine shape. Who's to say that they would've even noticed the white container hidden nearby? Now, if it was mentioned in prior logs that there were two cache containers or there was an NM log on the cache, then that's a different story. Of course, the cacher that placed the throwdown at #2 was in the wrong, but that's not the fault of the unsuspecting CO.

[+CAVinoGal]

Re-reviving this thread - the past two days have been ... interesting!  Out of the 10 finds I've logged, 3 were what I call "two-fers" - 2 containers at GZ.  That's 30%!!!  Seems like there are some local cachers who have no patience and just add a new container when they can't find the original.  When we can search and find TWO containers, and logs with signatures that are obviously original and then another container with a new log, well, you can kind of infer what happened and who didn't want to log a DNF!

 

What are the odds of us finding 3 caches in two days that have 2 containers at GZ??  Maybe this is more common than we think in our area.  If we don't find it, we log a DNF and let the CO take care of things; the CO obviously didn't check these and either allowed the throwdown, or was unaware that there was another container placed.  We combined logs when we could, and placed ONE container according to GZ and the hints - now we have some containers we can recycle!  We did note in our logs what we found and what we did, so the CO's can have their containers and logs back if the want.  No one had contacted us yet!

[+Team Microdot]

7 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Seems like there are some local cachers who have no patience and just add a new container when they can't find the original.

 

Happens round here too.

 

I guess those people are 'playing the game their own way'.

 

Can't help but wonder, if there were no limit on proximity, some people would carry cache around in their pockets and find some way of generating cache pages for hundreds of locations at a time using a sock-puppet account just so they could boost their 'find' count.

[+Korichnovui]

Something about this topic just infuriates me

If someone threw down on one of my hides, it would probably take me a few moments to compose myself

For myself, hey I'm a busy guy and sometimes I find a cache that just needs some more time to find it and I don't have the time at that visit. C'est la vie. I have no problems putting a frowny and maybe trying again some other time, especially if other people are finding it after me. I also usually word my logs in a way to avoid the suggestion that the only reason I couldn't find it must be because it was missing.

(I apparently have this problem IRL, that is, my spouse tells me that I tend to have this attitude that if I can't do or figure something out then it must be impossible, so this geocaching thing has been somewhat therapeutic on that front)

 

[+*GeoPunx*]

19 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

For myself, hey I'm a busy guy and sometimes I find a cache that just needs some more time to find it and I don't have the time at that visit.

 

21 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

I also usually word my logs in a way to avoid the suggestion that the only reason I couldn't find it must be because it was missing.

Same here.

[+Stakmaster]

Today I was actually searching for a cache and found a plastic nano mouse hidden under a rock at the coordinates. It had no log in it, and when I checked the hint it said it was a camo tube. By my thinking this was either a decoy by the CO or a throwdown by someone who could not find the cache. I could not find this camo tube, and this cache was one of many in a series by a long dormant CO, about half of which are well known to be missing. 

 

I didn't even know throwdowns were a thing until recently, but this definitely looked like one. What it accomplishes I don't know, considering I felt no satisfaction finding what was clearly not the original cache, and I did not log it.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Stakmaster

[+K13]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:52 PM, Stakmaster said:

Today I was actually searching for a cache and found a plastic nano mouse hidden under a rock at the coordinates. It had no log in it, and when I checked the hint it said it was a camo tube. By my thinking this was either a decoy by the CO or a throwdown by someone who could not find the cache. I could not find this camo tube, and this cache was one of many in a series by a long dormant CO, about half of which are well known to be missing. 

 

I didn't even know throwdowns were a thing until recently, but this definitely looked like one. What it accomplishes I don't know, considering I felt no satisfaction finding what was clearly not the original cache, and I did not log it.

That which exits the back side of a dog is a thing as well, and just as much fun to find.

[+Zane and Bianca]

I have been contacted in the past about one of my caches in particular which was always getting muggled and allowed a replacement to be placed. Eventually I came up with camouflage that has kept the muggles away for now but has also resulted in more messages. Maybe I need to update the difficulty. 

 The other problem I have is cache containers being taken. Bit dissapointing to think that fellow cachers would stopp to theft of a container bought from china for 50cents

 Tempted to change all my caches to allow paying players only to find them.

 Thoughts on this? 

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

Retire the problem cache?

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, Zane and Bianca said:

I have been contacted in the past about one of my caches in particular which was always getting muggled and allowed a replacement to be placed. Eventually I came up with camouflage that has kept the muggles away for now but has also resulted in more messages. Maybe I need to update the difficulty. 

 The other problem I have is cache containers being taken. Bit dissapointing to think that fellow cachers would stopp to theft of a container bought from china for 50cents

 Tempted to change all my caches to allow paying players only to find them.

 Thoughts on this? 

 

 

Yep, not surprising at all.  You've set up an expectation that folks can go ahead and throwdown a container of their own and log a Find.  When you color outside the lines of the stated maintenance expectations, there's a lot of unintended consequences to deal with, including the feeling the disappointment of folks doing things that fall outside your personal bias of how the game *should* be played, including theft.  I would suggest just getting used to it, or take TM's advice and just throw up your hands and lament the fact that people can't read your mind on what they are supposed to do.  Continuing as you have been, I would fully expect people to dispense with a container and logbook and merely log your Listing as if it were a Virtual.  Welcome to the real world.

[+Zane and Bianca]

37 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Yep, not surprising at all.  You've set up an expectation that folks can go ahead and throwdown a container of their own and log a Find.  When you color outside the lines of the stated maintenance expectations, there's a lot of unintended consequences to deal with, including the feeling the disappointment of folks doing things that fall outside your personal bias of how the game *should* be played, including theft.  I would suggest just getting used to it, or take TM's advice and just throw up your hands and lament the fact that people can't read your mind on what they are supposed to do.  Continuing as you have been, I would fully expect people to dispense with a container and logbook and merely log your Listing as if it were a Virtual.  Welcome to the real world.

I don't know where you got the idea that I agree to anything of the sort. The one cache I agreed to another cacher replacing was done through private messaging (we know each other) Nowhere did I condone theft of any sort. Its attitudes like yours that take the fun out of it as a game.

 If I am prepared to spend my time and money setting up caches for others to enjoy I can still point out that theft of said caches is wrong. As it happens only to caches that I have allowed non premium members to find well.... 

 Enough said. 

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, Zane and Bianca said:

Tempted to change all my caches to allow paying players only to find them.

 Thoughts on this? 

 

Yep...

If you feel simply paying 30 bucks makes someone more attentive, honest, or caring ... sure, give it a try. 

[+redsox_mark]

On 2/5/2018 at 11:02 PM, niraD said:

Although to be fair, there are times when the CO cannot find his/her own cache (e.g., due to cache migration), and then the CO replaces a cache that isn't actually missing. The result is confusion from multiple containers, both/all placed by the CO.

I have found caches where this has happened, where there were multiple containers placed by the CO. And I've had to tell multiple COs where I had found their caches, because they were unable to find their own caches that I had found recently.

 

Yes, I think this happens quite a lot.    There have been at least 3 cases that I remember where I found a cache (and only one container), but something I put in my log indicated to the CO that I found an older container which was presumed missing, and not the latest container.   In these cases the CO contacted me and asked what I had found and where, and confirmed from my description I had found a cache which had been presumed missing.   

 

Now as a CO, if I see logs reporting their are multiple containers, I'll check and see if I can find the additional container and remove it.    But if some people find container A, and others find container B, and nobody says they found two containers, I won't know to check it.      And if I do check it, I might find my container (as I know where that should be), and not be able to find the additional container.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:16 AM, Zane and Bianca said:

I have been contacted in the past about one of my caches in particular which was always getting muggled and allowed a replacement to be placed. Eventually I came up with camouflage that has kept the muggles away for now but has also resulted in more messages. Maybe I need to update the difficulty. 

 The other problem I have is cache containers being taken. Bit dissapointing to think that fellow cachers would stopp to theft of a container bought from china for 50cents

 Tempted to change all my caches to allow paying players only to find them.

 Thoughts on this? 

 

 

I'd encourage you not to do it.    Making all your caches PMO would penalize new cachers for simply being new.

 

No matter what you do in life there's a learning curve.   If good experienced cache owners can't deal with a few bumps in the road who can?  

 

When I have a muggle problem 99% of the time I realize I'm actually the one to blame.

 

Could have done a better job with camo.

 

Didn't take the time to scout out the area or was too hard headed to move the cache to a better spot.  How many missing containers dose it take to get to the center of a muggle problem?  For me that was 4.