Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
jellis

throwdowns

Recommended Posts

I take pride in my hides. No way I'd want someone to throwdown a cache if it's missing. I've never seen a worthy throwdown - they're either a pill bottle, bison tube, or some other type of small cheap leaky container.

And I don't buy the "help" excuse. Unless they mean help themselves to a smiley.

I might buy into their declared altruistic intent if they didn't count the cache they threw down as a find.

They offered to help you replace your cache. That's entirely different than a throwdown. And since you didn't accept their offer, you don't know whether they would have claimed the find.

Share this post


Link to post

There are two victims here. one the cache owner whose cache is messed with. Two are those who had nothing to do with the throw down found a cache and now have their logs deleted.

While I can see the subsequent seekers feeling disappointed, I don't think it rises to the level of being a victim. So they didn't get the find. Big deal. They might not have found it even if there weren't a throwdown, and they certainly wouldn't have found it if it were missing. I refuse to concede that someone is a victim simply because they don't have a legitimate claim to a find, even when they can show it's not their fault.

 

I don't recall one of my finds being denied because of a throwdown, and I wouldn't deny such a find if it were my cache, but if it did happen, my reaction would be to thank the CO for pointing out my mistake. But I'm not rigid about it: a couple of times I've discovered that I probably found a throwdown, but I saw no reason to withdraw my find.

 

But because most throwdowners want that smiley so bad, they make excuses for doing it.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I have to object to this point. I actually think that most people dropping a throwdown only think about how they're doing everyone a favor. I think it's more accurate to think of them as misguided rather than lying cheaters.

I didn't mean to say that all throwdowners were lying cheaters. I'd actually say that the vast majority aren't trying to cheat. As you said, some are misguided and don't realize the potential consequences.

 

Still, no matter what the reason they come up with for throwdowning, the fact remains they DID NOT FIND the cache they initially went looking for. The smiley has become so important that people come up with different ways to rationalize claiming it. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Things to learn from this discussion:

• Don't do throwdowns. Log DNFs instead. Smileys are not important.

• Clearly mark your caches at least with the GC code..

• As a searcher: check for the GC code. Contact the owner if in doubt.

• Maintain your caches.

• Stay cool.

 

Thank you very much. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Well it happened again. Someone left a pill bottle where I have a fake bolt. Geez will this ever stop? It's rated 2how is a pill bottle a 2?

Share this post


Link to post

Well it happened again. Someone left a pill bottle where I have a fake bolt. Geez will this ever stop? It's rated 2how is a pill bottle a 2?

 

Delete the log.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it happened again. Someone left a pill bottle where I have a fake bolt. Geez will this ever stop? It's rated 2how is a pill bottle a 2?

 

Delete the log.

 

In this case, a deletion without even trying to contact the supposed finder. I would let them know what was going on if they did happen to contact me. I'd also add to my cache's description in bold uppercase font that THROWDOWNS ARE NOT WELCOME..

Share this post


Link to post

I did that is how I how I found out. He said it wasn't hard to find so I asked what he found. I asked if he can delete his log.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd also add to my cache's description in bold uppercase font that THROWDOWNS ARE NOT WELCOME..

 

we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

4c6554d9-00e7-4632-995c-d56c95b60626.jpg

 

Don't throw down:

 

e651b97d-e3d4-4d45-8027-f43fb0e7bd24.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
I'd also add to my cache's description in bold uppercase font that THROWDOWNS ARE NOT WELCOME..

 

we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

4c6554d9-00e7-4632-995c-d56c95b60626.jpg

 

Don't throw down:

 

e651b97d-e3d4-4d45-8027-f43fb0e7bd24.jpg

 

No.

Just no.

 

Don't give anyone any tools that could ever be used to encourage laziness in cache owners.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it happened again. Someone left a pill bottle where I have a fake bolt. Geez will this ever stop? It's rated 2how is a pill bottle a 2?

 

Delete the log.

This time it was not the case of a Throw down. I went to check it out and it turns out someone found one of the missing containers from 2014. I didn't delete anyone's log because the container was mine. I did remove it though.

Share this post


Link to post
we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

4c6554d9-00e7-4632-995c-d56c95b60626.jpg

 

Don't throw down:

 

e651b97d-e3d4-4d45-8027-f43fb0e7bd24.jpg

Yes, as long as the following technical requirements are met:

  1. There's no way to add the former to a cache listing.
  2. The latter is automatically and irreversibly added to all cache listings.

:grin:

Share this post


Link to post

To me, it's not even about the quality of the container...it's about the real intent behind it, which is often nothing altruistic.

I think it comes back to whether the "altruistic" cacher has already found the cache in question or not. If they have, then I'd be more likely to accept their offer because their intent is clearly legitimately altruistic. However, if the cacher hasn't found the cache and is offering to replace it, it would feel like a subtle jab at me that my maintenance schedule isn't fast enough for them and they want to get their smiley sooner. In such a case, I might even consider Touchstone's route of archiving and telling them they're welcome to hide their own cache at the coordinates if the spot is that important to them. :laughing:

 

I've only offered to replace a container when I know the CO, and it appears to be missing. In these cases I asked for "spoiler instructions" so I could be 99% sure it really was missing before replacing. I also asked them what the container was and replaced it with something similar. Now, I only noticed these because I was planning to cache in the area, and this was an unfound cache. I didn't do a self analysis to decide if I was being altruistic or acting in my own interest; I suspect a bit of both.

 

I'd be hesitant to make the offer to a CO I don't know (in fear they might react negatively).

 

I'm not likely to notice a cache I've already found is (likely) missing, since it is generally unfound caches I'm looking for. There is one case; a cache which is ~100 yards from my home. As it is so close, I volunteered to the CO to watch it and replace it for her if needed, which she gladly accepted. She is a good cache owner, but owns hundreds of caches so isn't always quick to replace. It's just a nano, and when I see her at events she has given me spares. So in this case I'm truly altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post

I've only offered to replace a container when I know the CO, and it appears to be missing. In these cases I asked for "spoiler instructions" so I could be 99% sure it really was missing before replacing. I also asked them what the container was and replaced it with something similar. Now, I only noticed these because I was planning to cache in the area, and this was an unfound cache.

I can't see how anyone could complain if you're operating as an authorized agent of the CO.

 

I didn't do a self analysis to decide if I was being altruistic or acting in my own interest; I suspect a bit of both.

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd also add to my cache's description in bold uppercase font that THROWDOWNS ARE NOT WELCOME..

 

we need some better way to inform cachers not to make assumptions about the desires of cache owners regarding seemingly missing caches.

 

How about a new attribute?

 

Throw downs OK:

 

4c6554d9-00e7-4632-995c-d56c95b60626.jpg

 

Don't throw down:

 

e651b97d-e3d4-4d45-8027-f43fb0e7bd24.jpg

 

a lot of the waypoints i download while online do not show attributes unless i go online to see the webpage. i have no idea if anyone else misses the attributes sections, just something to keep in mind.

Share this post


Link to post

I've only offered to replace a container when I know the CO, and it appears to be missing. In these cases I asked for "spoiler instructions" so I could be 99% sure it really was missing before replacing. I also asked them what the container was and replaced it with something similar. Now, I only noticed these because I was planning to cache in the area, and this was an unfound cache.

I can't see how anyone could complain if you're operating as an authorized agent of the CO.

 

I didn't do a self analysis to decide if I was being altruistic or acting in my own interest; I suspect a bit of both.

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

I did something similar last year on a cache at the base of a waterfall in the Watagan Mountains. Because GPS reception is poor in the gully, the cache page had a photo showing the cache in position under a distinctive rock ledge. Without any doubt, I found that location (and photographed it) but the cache wasn't there, so I logged a DNF and NM. The CO, who I know well, subsequently confirmed that it was missing and offered to allow me to change my log to a find, but I said I'd prefer to revisit the site when it was back in action. In the end, I took the replacement cache with me when I returned to GZ and had no qualms about logging a find then. After all, I did the substantial hike (twice), found the hiding place, would have found the cache had it been there and finally signed the physical log on-site in the CO-sanctioned replacement. I also wanted to record it as a favourite since it's a great hike to a beautiful spot, and could only do that by logging a find. Does it really make no sense for me to have claimed a find under these circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post

Easy answer to avoid the dilemma: Never take any throw-downable containers with you when you cache. :P Then you're only left with DNF/NM/Note or contact the CO, and they'll have to decide what to do. No moral dilemma 'should I lay or ask to lay a replacement'.

 

Here's what I think we can learn more from this thread:

* The CO ultimately makes the call, and takes the responsibility when the call is made

* Help is welcome, when help is welcome; otherwise, your unwelcome help is a problem (and not your responsibility)

* If you DNF, log the DNF; don't log a find unless the CO makes the call and lets you (at which point you can still log the DNF if you wish) given whatever circumstances

* If smileys shouldn't be important enough to throwdown just for the +1, then they shouldn't be important enough to complain about others', if the CO approved, and it harmed no followup finders

* Everyone has an opinion and a way of playing - if it doesn't affect/mislead someone else, then there's no reason to get worked up about it

* Final, general tip: Down throwdown! [without CO approval!] With CO approval, then if there's a problem, it becomes their issue again anyway.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

 

That is your opinion. It makes sense to me. My name is on the logbook, I had the cache in my hands at GZ.

 

I know I didn't "find" that container in the normal use of the word. I found the spot, and placed the container. But I (and others) look at it this way: I see caches as either things I own, that I've found, or can find. It's not logical to me to say I can't find this cache because I replaced it for the owner.

 

I don't see this as "special permission". I can't imagine an owner saying "yes please replace my cache for me. However, you may not log it as a find".

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see this as "special permission". I can't imagine an owner saying "yes please replace my cache for me. However, you may not log it as a find".

 

It is special, as in out of the ordinary, though in that the CO is complicit in the false recording of a find that never happened.

 

I see a worrying trend arising from this where CO's no longer bother to maintain caches - simply make it known that they are happy for *cough* finders to take along and place their own cache at GZ.

 

A significant drawback to this is, of course, not the fact that *cough* finders stats don't reflect reality, rather it's the fact that lazy cache owners permanently tie up locations in already saturated areas which then become completely stagnant for new placements and effectively lock out newcomers who might want to place their own caches.

 

Throwdowns are bad for the game - end of.

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Share this post


Link to post
1474711316[/url]' post='5611123']
1474665055[/url]' post='5611075']

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

 

That is your opinion. It makes sense to me. My name is on the logbook, I had the cache in my hands at GZ.

 

I know I didn't "find" that container in the normal use of the word. I found the spot, and placed the container. But I (and others) look at it this way: I see caches as either things I own, that I've found, or can find. It's not logical to me to say I can't find this cache because I replaced it for the owner.

 

I don't see this as "special permission". I can't imagine an owner saying "yes please replace my cache for me. However, you may not log it as a find".

 

If you couldn't log it as a find, would you replace the cache?

Share this post


Link to post
If you couldn't log it as a find, would you replace the cache?

Most throwdowns in this area seem to be "#32 of 119 today" outta the area folks passing through.

The few local, when asked by "that rude cerberus guy" (events mostly), admit that it wouldn't happen without that smiley.

Guess it's "rude" to call 'em on it...

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

 

Well, if we're going to resort to arguing semantics, logging a find on a container you placed yourself isn't a find.

 

Personally I'd say it's very much on topic.

 

Are we really meant to believe that the difference between a throwdown and a not-throwdown is CO permission? That's just a con.

 

Going back to my earlier point, there are CO's out there who not only allow throwdowns as a means of saving themselves any maintenance effort but actively promote them as their preference to the point where it becomes accepted that throwdowns on that CO's caches - especially when you desperately need that one more smiley - are acceptable and even encouraged.

 

This sends out a message to others that maintaining your caches isn't required as hey, everyone carries spare containers around so that nobody ever has a DNF and nobody ever has to do any maintenance - and anyone who says otherwise is pure evil :ph34r:

 

And there was I thinking that virtual caches were a thing of the past...

Share this post


Link to post

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

That is your opinion. It makes sense to me. My name is on the logbook, I had the cache in my hands at GZ.

 

I know I didn't "find" that container in the normal use of the word. I found the spot, and placed the container. But I (and others) look at it this way: I see caches as either things I own, that I've found, or can find. It's not logical to me to say I can't find this cache because I replaced it for the owner.

 

I don't see this as "special permission". I can't imagine an owner saying "yes please replace my cache for me. However, you may not log it as a find".

I don't really have any argument with your position. I should have found a better way to express it than "makes no sense" since the justifications you're presenting are quite reasonable. I just don't think they support saying that, according to the rules, you can claim the find. I don't expect any owner to deny the claim under these conditions, but I can imagine that implausible case, and if it came up, then I'd say his rejection rules. And I do not deny that I'd claim the find, too, unless I knew I'd be in the area again later when I could "find" the container I hid. (But I avoid this inconsistency by not offering to help replace the cache to begin with.)

 

I have similar feelings about watching someone hide a cache. I don't think it's logical to claim that as a find, either, but it makes sense to me to go back later and find the container I watched the CO hide.

Share this post


Link to post

 

No analysis needed: you didn't find it any more than the CO found it, so it still makes no sense for you to claim the find. The CO is free to grant you special permission, of course, but that's up to him and has nothing to do with whether you were being sufficiently altruistic.

 

That is your opinion. It makes sense to me. My name is on the logbook, I had the cache in my hands at GZ.

 

I know I didn't "find" that container in the normal use of the word. I found the spot, and placed the container. But I (and others) look at it this way: I see caches as either things I own, that I've found, or can find. It's not logical to me to say I can't find this cache because I replaced it for the owner.

 

I don't see this as "special permission". I can't imagine an owner saying "yes please replace my cache for me. However, you may not log it as a find".

 

You looked for the cache and then admit that you didn't find it. How does throwdowning change this fact? I can't understand how this could make sense to anyone. :blink:

 

No, i wouldn't tell you that you couldn't log a find on my cache if you replaced it for me. I probably wouldn't buck it if you did log the find. Of course, then that would make me a bad cache owner because i'm not doing proper maintenance, part of which entails deleting false logs.

 

I've said it before and i'll say it again, please don't help one of my caches by throwing down a container on it. I'll take care of it.. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

Good point well made B)

 

I'll add to that:

 

When you go out caching, resist the temptation to take spare caches along with you and that way you won't feel tempted to put one down just so you can claim the smiley :)

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I did something similar last year on a cache at the base of a waterfall in the Watagan Mountains. Because GPS reception is poor in the gully, the cache page had a photo showing the cache in position under a distinctive rock ledge. Without any doubt, I found that location (and photographed it) but the cache wasn't there, so I logged a DNF and NM. The CO, who I know well, subsequently confirmed that it was missing and offered to allow me to change my log to a find, but I said I'd prefer to revisit the site when it was back in action. In the end, I took the replacement cache with me when I returned to GZ and had no qualms about logging a find then. After all, I did the substantial hike (twice), found the hiding place, would have found the cache had it been there and finally signed the physical log on-site in the CO-sanctioned replacement. I also wanted to record it as a favourite since it's a great hike to a beautiful spot, and could only do that by logging a find. Does it really make no sense for me to have claimed a find under these circumstances?

 

In this case, I do agree with you. Your first visit was DNF and NM as it should be. Your second visit was a maintenance run on behalf of the CO; I don't think that you'd have to make a third visit so you could "find" the cache that you placed there on the second.

Share this post


Link to post

Are we really meant to believe that the difference between a throwdown and a not-throwdown is CO permission? That's just a con.

Howso? If the CO gave permission, then it's now (as it would have been) the CO's responsibility to make sure the cache is in good standing - whether that means trusting the replacing cacher, or taking a visit at a later time to verify. What does it matter to you if the cacher who replaced it also logged it as a find? Really, what does it matter to you? How does that - overall - affect anyone else?

Yes, there can be exceptions, and the practice could cause issues, but the practice in and of itself is not a Bad Thing. Fundamentally, it is between the cacher and the CO, and if all is well, then all is well and it hurts no one.

 

What is of concern are situations that do cause problems - and many of those have been mentioned in this thread. Those are the problems, not merely (all and every) CO-permitted cache replacement.

 

And I do not deny that I'd claim the find, too, unless I knew I'd be in the area again later when I could "find" the container I hid. (But I avoid this inconsistency by not offering to help replace the cache to begin with.)

 

I have similar feelings about watching someone hide a cache. I don't think it's logical to claim that as a find, either, but it makes sense to me to go back later and find the container I watched the CO hide.

heh, I can see the logic of all that. And in my mind, it feels to me a technicality. I consider it more like, since it's all at the point my own decisions about my own actions, it seems like a waste of resources to leave the area, then return later just to sign it "properly" when I could have done it earlier and nothing has since changed. Like, what's the arbitrary sufficient amount of time I should wait before going back to re-find and log the cache I placed with permission? Seems like a needless question, so in that case while I can decide whether to log right away or to wait and return, my default action would be to log it. In the end, in my mind, there's no difference except resources (time/energy/gas/etc).

 

"(But I avoid this inconsistency by not offering to help replace the cache to begin with.)"

Ditto ;) I don't often replace a cache, and only with CO permission, mainly because I rarely take any spare containers with me. It's more likely I'll have spare paper for a new log sheet than a spare container for a new cache.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

THIS!

Share this post


Link to post

Are we really meant to believe that the difference between a throwdown and a not-throwdown is CO permission? That's just a con.

 

Howso? If the CO gave permission, then it's now (as it would have been) the CO's responsibility to make sure the cache is in good standing - whether that means trusting the replacing cacher, or taking a visit at a later time to verify. What does it matter to you if the cacher who replaced it also logged it as a find? Really, what does it matter to you? How does that - overall - affect anyone else?

Yes, there can be exceptions, and the practice could cause issues, but the practice in and of itself is not a Bad Thing. Fundamentally, it is between the cacher and the CO, and if all is well, then all is well and it hurts no one.

 

What is of concern are situations that do cause problems - and many of those have been mentioned in this thread. Those are the problems, not merely (all and every) CO-permitted cache replacement.

 

What does it matter to you whether something matters to me? :ph34r:

 

I thought I'd communicated clearly - but I guess not.

 

The person hiding the cache also logging it as a find isn't really the issue at all - that's just a bi-product that I find mildly amusing.

 

The issue is that the whole throwdown thing fosters an attitude to the game that is lame and facilitates scatter-gun cache placers who fully intend to avoid any and all cache maintenence rendering geocaching a game of finding junky throwdown containers with wet logs or, better still - a game where you take your own geocache along with you just to make sure you get the smiley :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, I'm off outside now for an exciting game of hide-and-seek - with myself :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

What does it matter to you whether something matters to me? :ph34r:

You're denigrating people for their cache logging habits that don't affect you (this is regarding CO-approved replacements by a cacher who is able to legitimately and reliably help the CO)

I'm not denigrating you for whether or not something matters to you - it can matter to you, I couldn't care less. But there's no need to criticize people who do something that doesn't affect you in the slightest. ie, whether someone logs a cache as found that the CO has given them permission to log as found and who also takes on the responsibility to make sure the replacement is up to their approval.

 

I agree with you that throwdowns are bad for the game.

That's not the entirety of what's being addressed.

 

The person hiding the cache also logging it as a find isn't really the issue at all - that's just a bi-product that I find mildly amusing.

The issue is that the whole throwdown thing....

That's two different things being discussed.

1. CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission.

2. Throwdown.

Which are you criticizing?

 

...fosters an attitude to the game that is lame and facilitates scatter-gun cache placers who fully intend to avoid any and all cache maintenence rendering geocaching a game of finding junky throwdown containers with wet logs or, better still - a game where you take your own geocache along with you just to make sure you get the smiley :rolleyes:

So stereotyping the entire set of actions (from unchecked unpermitted cacher toss-down replacements to CO-permitted and verified cache replacements, whether or not the replacer logs it found) by the worst possible scenario. ...Okay.

Share this post


Link to post

You're denigrating people for their cache logging habits that don't affect you (this is regarding CO-approved replacements by a cacher who is able to legitimately and reliably help the CO)

 

Even if I were, it doesn't affect you so I don't see why you're commenting <_<

 

But there's no need to criticize people who do something that doesn't affect you in the slightest. ie, whether someone logs a cache as found that the CO has given them permission to log as found and who also takes on the responsibility to make sure the replacement is up to their approval.

 

There's no need to praise them either. Cuts both ways. Or should we keep our thoughts to ourselves? That would make for rather short discussions.

 

I agree with you that throwdowns are bad for the game.

 

Good - I'm glad about that :)

 

That's not the entirety of what's being addressed.

 

The person hiding the cache also logging it as a find isn't really the issue at all - that's just a bi-product that I find mildly amusing.

The issue is that the whole throwdown thing....

 

That's two different things being discussed.

1. CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission.

2. Throwdown.

Which are you criticizing?

 

For me they amount to the same thing and I think both have a negative impact - #1 leads to #2.

 

...fosters an attitude to the game that is lame and facilitates scatter-gun cache placers who fully intend to avoid any and all cache maintenence rendering geocaching a game of finding junky throwdown containers with wet logs or, better still - a game where you take your own geocache along with you just to make sure you get the smiley :rolleyes:

 

So stereotyping the entire set of actions (from unchecked unpermitted cacher toss-down replacements to CO-permitted and verified cache replacements, whether or not the replacer logs it found) by the worst possible scenario. ...Okay.

 

Indeed.

 

Because cache owners who want to spew out hundreds of caches and shirk their maintenance responsibility have realised that they can leverage the whole mechanism to legitimise their actions - to some folk at least :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

And i agree,, if a cache owner knows and is fine with it, then it's not really a throwdown. Like i said, i've helped cache owners myself by contacting them on the spot and replacing their missing containers. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to log a find on a cache that i did not find or on a container that i placed myself.

 

Having said this, i don't care what others do in this regard. But on throwdowns, i do care, because i do know for a fact that they do cause problems at times.

Share this post


Link to post

That's not the entirety of what's being addressed.

 

The person hiding the cache also logging it as a find isn't really the issue at all - that's just a bi-product that I find mildly amusing.

The issue is that the whole throwdown thing....

 

That's two different things being discussed.

1. CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission.

2. Throwdown.

Which are you criticizing?

 

For me they amount to the same thing and I think both have a negative impact - #1 leads to #2.

 

That's a pretty long bow to draw. Consider another cache, again in a fairly isolated location (an hour or more's drive into the hinterland). I was out there for work and went looking for a cache by the river during my lunch break. The hollow tree where the cache should have been was empty, instead I found the logbook, pencil, some swag and the container lid scattered on the riverbank. No sign of the container body though. Since I was coming back the next week on business, I offered to dry out the log, replace the container and put it back, which the CO accepted - who wouldn't? It saved me the need to go to the CO's place to return the bits I'd found, or for him to come to my place, and I was going back to GZ regardless. How is this wrong, and how does helping a mate like this lead to throwdowns?

Share this post


Link to post

That's two different things being discussed.

1. CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission.

2. Throwdown.

Which are you criticizing?

 

For me they amount to the same thing and I think both have a negative impact - #1 leads to #2.

 

That's a pretty long bow to draw. Consider another cache, again in a fairly isolated location (an hour or more's drive into the hinterland). I was out there for work and went looking for a cache by the river during my lunch break. The hollow tree where the cache should have been was empty, instead I found the logbook, pencil, some swag and the container lid scattered on the riverbank. No sign of the container body though. Since I was coming back the next week on business, I offered to dry out the log, replace the container and put it back, which the CO accepted - who wouldn't? It saved me the need to go to the CO's place to return the bits I'd found, or for him to come to my place, and I was going back to GZ regardless. How is this wrong, and how does helping a mate like this lead to throwdowns?

I would have no problem doing the same, and know plenty of other cachers who'd do the same. Good on you!

 

Because cache owners who want to spew out hundreds of caches and shirk their maintenance responsibility have realised that they can leverage the whole mechanism to legitimise their actions - to some folk at least :rolleyes:

You are villifying every CO who for whatever good, positive, reason allows a cacher in good heart to help out by maintaining a cache for the CO when there is absolutely nothing wrong and no ill effect, even if the two are friends. You villify anyone who has a kind heart and properly and skillfully and reliably fixes a cache with CO permission, who may then later verify that everything is in good standing. You sir are wrong, and there's no other way to cut it. You can't group the entire set as objectively bad for the pastime. There are instances where it is, but those are not every instance.

You don't like anyone replacing a cache at all who is not the owner, that's fine. No one needs to help you, and you don't need to let anyone help you. Don't villify everyone, including those who do not deserve it. That's all I have to say about that. L8r, thread!

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

And i agree,, if a cache owner knows and is fine with it, then it's not really a throwdown. Like i said, i've helped cache owners myself by contacting them on the spot and replacing their missing containers. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to log a find on a cache that i did not find or on a container that i placed myself.

 

Having said this, i don't care what others do in this regard. But on throwdowns, i do care, because i do know for a fact that they do cause problems at times.

 

For some it doesn't "make sense" to leave a cache perpetually unfound. Personal choice!

 

And for others it doesn't "make sense" to insist on conflating mutual cache maintenance arrangements with reckless throwdown behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Because cache owners who want to spew out hundreds of caches and shirk their maintenance responsibility have realised that they can leverage the whole mechanism to legitimise their actions - to some folk at least :rolleyes:

You are villifying every CO who for whatever good, positive, reason allows a cacher in good heart to help out by maintaining a cache for the CO when there is absolutely nothing wrong and no ill effect, even if the two are friends. You villify anyone who has a kind heart and properly and skillfully and reliably fixes a cache with CO permission, who may then later verify that everything is in good standing. You sir are wrong, and there's no other way to cut it.... You don't like anyone replacing a cache at all who is not the owner, that's fine.

 

I disagree.

 

It looks like you've let your imagination run away with you.

 

That's all I have to say about that. L8r, thread!

 

Very good :)

Share this post


Link to post

That's not the entirety of what's being addressed.

 

The person hiding the cache also logging it as a find isn't really the issue at all - that's just a bi-product that I find mildly amusing.

The issue is that the whole throwdown thing....

 

That's two different things being discussed.

1. CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission.

2. Throwdown.

Which are you criticizing?

 

For me they amount to the same thing and I think both have a negative impact - #1 leads to #2.

 

That's a pretty long bow to draw. Consider another cache, again in a fairly isolated location (an hour or more's drive into the hinterland). I was out there for work and went looking for a cache by the river during my lunch break. The hollow tree where the cache should have been was empty, instead I found the logbook, pencil, some swag and the container lid scattered on the riverbank. No sign of the container body though. Since I was coming back the next week on business, I offered to dry out the log, replace the container and put it back, which the CO accepted - who wouldn't? It saved me the need to go to the CO's place to return the bits I'd found, or for him to come to my place, and I was going back to GZ regardless. How is this wrong, and how does helping a mate like this lead to throwdowns?

 

I confess to not keeping up with the entire thread but my hunch is that the scenario you describe here is about as far removed from the subject of the thread as it could be.

 

For one - it's clear that you found all but one part of the original cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

And i agree,, if a cache owner knows and is fine with it, then it's not really a throwdown. Like i said, i've helped cache owners myself by contacting them on the spot and replacing their missing containers. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to log a find on a cache that i did not find or on a container that i placed myself.

 

Having said this, i don't care what others do in this regard. But on throwdowns, i do care, because i do know for a fact that they do cause problems at times.

 

For some it doesn't "make sense" to leave a cache perpetually unfound. Personal choice!

 

And for others it doesn't "make sense" to insist on conflating mutual cache maintenance arrangements with reckless throwdown behaviour.

In this case, it is a personal choice but not a factual choice. Whether it's throwndown or placed with owner permission, the fact is the cache searched for was not found. There are other ways to keep that cache from being perpetually unfound.

 

We see the "makes sense to me" card played all the time but that doesn't mean it's correctly played. For example, i'm sure it makes sense to thieves that it's better to steal from others. What, this is fine and dandy since it makes sense to them? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

And i agree,, if a cache owner knows and is fine with it, then it's not really a throwdown. Like i said, i've helped cache owners myself by contacting them on the spot and replacing their missing containers. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to log a find on a cache that i did not find or on a container that i placed myself.

 

Having said this, i don't care what others do in this regard. But on throwdowns, i do care, because i do know for a fact that they do cause problems at times.

 

For some it doesn't "make sense" to leave a cache perpetually unfound. Personal choice!

 

And for others it doesn't "make sense" to insist on conflating mutual cache maintenance arrangements with reckless throwdown behaviour.

In this case, it is a personal choice but not a factual choice. Whether it's throwndown or placed with owner permission, the fact is the cache searched for was not found. There are other ways to keep that cache from being perpetually unfound.

 

We see the "makes sense to me" card played all the time but that doesn't mean it's correctly played. For example, i'm sure it makes sense to thieves that it's better to steal from others. What, this is fine and dandy since it makes sense to them? :rolleyes:

 

Just to be clear on what you are saying here, when someone logs "found" on a cache they repaired or replaced with consent from the owner, it is equivalent to theft?

 

The "makes sense" card you are playing is entirely subjective. That is the point. You don't need to validate your personal decision to leave caches forever unfound because you helped a cache owner with them. It's up to you to make that choice.

 

What doesn't make sense at all in a community-based game is denigrating others for logging the find and, worse still, drawing false equivalencies with throwdown and theft. There is no need to cast such a negative light on other cachers this way.

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

Good point well made B)

 

I'll add to that:

 

When you go out caching, resist the temptation to take spare caches along with you and that way you won't feel tempted to put one down just so you can claim the smiley :)

 

It's seems to me that if someone owns their own caches they might check up on them while they're out geocaching and it would be real handy to have a replacement container for their own hides, and thus maintain their own caches.

 

Going back to try and find it again is not always practical. Almost 15% of my finds are more than 1000 miles from home.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

Good point well made B)

 

I'll add to that:

 

When you go out caching, resist the temptation to take spare caches along with you and that way you won't feel tempted to put one down just so you can claim the smiley :)

 

It's seems to me that if someone owns their own caches they might check up on them while they're out geocaching and it would be real handy to have a replacement container for their own hides, and thus maintain their own caches.

 

Going back to try and find it again is not always practical. Almost 15% of my finds are more than 1000 miles from home.

 

I don't think anyone here contests that - it certainly makes good sense :)

 

That's a heck of a maintenance radius BTW - how did you manage to swing that one by the reviewers?

Share this post


Link to post

I've only replaced caches for active cache owners that I know. And that maintain their caches.

 

I see the logic in "you can't find it if you know where it is", but again that creates a situation of a cache which I can never find, which seems odd. Also, this logic excludes logging a find if you were with the CO when he/she hid it. Again I see that logic, and can cough and laugh at me, but around my way generally when replacing a cache for someone, cachers log it as a find, and I don't see any harm caused.

 

I guess this is a bit off topic, as replacing a cache with advanced agreement of the owner is not a throwdown.

Been there and had the same feeling. Called an owner from ground zero, determined the cache was missing, an he asked if i could help. Kinda unfair in a way until i realized this was one cache that i didn't have to have a smiley on. Didn't hurt a bit not to add that smiley to my count.

 

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

This is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic. There is no need to criticize anyone for logging the find or not logging the find. Geocachers arranging to help each other with maintenance is not the same as throwing down a cache.

And i agree,, if a cache owner knows and is fine with it, then it's not really a throwdown. Like i said, i've helped cache owners myself by contacting them on the spot and replacing their missing containers. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to log a find on a cache that i did not find or on a container that i placed myself.

 

Having said this, i don't care what others do in this regard. But on throwdowns, i do care, because i do know for a fact that they do cause problems at times.

 

For some it doesn't "make sense" to leave a cache perpetually unfound. Personal choice!

 

And for others it doesn't "make sense" to insist on conflating mutual cache maintenance arrangements with reckless throwdown behaviour.

In this case, it is a personal choice but not a factual choice. Whether it's throwndown or placed with owner permission, the fact is the cache searched for was not found. There are other ways to keep that cache from being perpetually unfound.

 

We see the "makes sense to me" card played all the time but that doesn't mean it's correctly played. For example, i'm sure it makes sense to thieves that it's better to steal from others. What, this is fine and dandy since it makes sense to them? :rolleyes:

 

Just to be clear on what you are saying here, when someone logs "found" on a cache they repaired or replaced with consent from the owner, it is equivalent to theft?

 

The "makes sense" card you are playing is entirely subjective. That is the point. You don't need to validate your personal decision to leave caches forever unfound because you helped a cache owner with them. It's up to you to make that choice.

 

What doesn't make sense at all in a community-based game is denigrating others for logging the find and, worse still, drawing false equivalencies with throwdown and theft. There is no need to cast such a negative light on other cachers this way.

Sheesh,,, i didn't say that throwdowning was equivalent to theft. I did say that when something "makes sense" to people, that what they're making sense of isn't always right. Anyway, i'm conversing/debating here (what forums are for). In the big scheme of things, i don't really care that this stuff happens. I'm certainly not calling anyone who does this dirty rotten scoundrels. :P

Share this post


Link to post

heh, I can see the logic of all that. And in my mind, it feels to me a technicality. I consider it more like, since it's all at the point my own decisions about my own actions,...

Yes, that's a good way to put it: technically, you did not find the cache. So I say it's not your decision, it's the CO's decision. Happily, I doubt there's a single CO that would ask you to replace the cache but then deny your find if you tried to claim one -- i.e., most CO's wouldn't split hairs over this technicality -- but that doesn't make it any less their decision.

 

...it seems like a waste of resources to leave the area, then return later just to sign it "properly" when I could have done it earlier and nothing has since changed.

I look at it the other way around: the value of the find is zero since logging a find is just a matter of reporting what happened. In fact, reporting the find when you technically did not find it has a negative value since that log would be inaccurate. Reporting the technical fact that you didn't find it makes the most sense. In that light, if you consider it a waste to go back, then don't go back. No big deal. But don't pretend you don't need to go back to log the find.

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me if I'm splitting hairs, but I'm really trying to get my head around the argument that a CO-sanctioned replacement shouldn't be logged as a find because you're not finding something if you already know where it is.

 

Suppose I go in search of a remote cache and several hours later reach GZ. I'm pretty sure from the description and hint that I've found the hiding place (it might be something distinctive like a hollow tree) but there's no cache there. I take some photos, return home and log a DNF. Later on, I show my photos to the CO and he confirms I was looking in the right place and that the cache is indeed missing.

 

Scenario 1: Because I'll be going back up the mountain before the CO will have a chance to do so, I offer to take a replacement cache with me and he's happy with this as it will save him a long trip. I go out there, put the new cache in the previously discovered hiding place and sign the logbook stating what I've done. If I'm correctly understanding the arguments presented here, this shouldn't be classed as a find because I can't be "finding" something if I already know where it is.

 

Scenario 2: The CO goes to GZ before I do, replacing the cache and logging an OM stating that the new cache is in the same place as the original. When I eventually go back there, I return to the spot I'd previously discovered and, voila, there's a cache there now. I sign the log and return home. I don't think anyone here would dispute that this is a legitimate find, after all it's exactly how the system is supposed to work, and yet, just like scenario 1, I didn't really "find" the cache on my second visit because I already knew exactly where it would be.

 

Scenario 3: I go with the CO when he takes the replacement cache up the mountain. Before placing it in its hiding place, he hands me the log which I sign. The cache is then placed in the hiding spot that I'd previously discovered and which the CO agrees is correct. Is this a legitimate find?

 

My head hurts.

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me if I'm splitting hairs, but I'm really trying to get my head around the argument that a CO-sanctioned replacement shouldn't be logged as a find because you're not finding something if you already know where it is.

When you're CO, do you claim your own finds? Assuming you don't, then you understand the logic of not claiming the find of a cache you hid. The logic doesn't really change just because you're not the CO but are only acting on behalf of the CO.

 

Is this a legitimate find?

Any find the CO allows you to log is legitimate, so that's not the question. The question we're discussing is "Did you find the cache?", which is different than "Can you log the cache as found." You can always log the cache as found if the CO allows it (ignoring the case of a CO abusing his discretion and treating a cache as virtual when it's not).

Share this post


Link to post

The bottomline with throwdowns is that when getting to GZ and not finding a cache it's a DNF and everyone seems to agree on that. The fact that you happen to have a spare container and log does not change the fact that no cache was found.

The ever important smiley or +1 on your stats seems so important that people will try everything to justify that just bringing a spare container is enough to log a find. Still, no cache was found.

Share this post


Link to post

The bottomline with throwdowns is that when getting to GZ and not finding a cache it's a DNF and everyone seems to agree on that. The fact that you happen to have a spare container and log does not change the fact that no cache was found.

The ever important smiley or +1 on your stats seems so important that people will try everything to justify that just bringing a spare container is enough to log a find. Still, no cache was found.

 

This ^^

Share this post


Link to post

the co's here seem to be against it just because of the added maintenance.

 

so let's fix that part by fixing the cache listing.... instead of trying to fix 100 people a year that might never care to read about it again:

 

if the cache is a oddly placed micro, why not just tell the cachers where to find that oddly placed micro, instead of confusing them? it's not like it's going to be a revolutionary type of find.... it's just another micro in an odd place.

 

it would not be that hard to just tell them "it's a fake bolt" in the hint, since, i mean, that's what it is. it's not something brand new to this game. this would give the people that want the surprise of a new cache type to avoid the hint until they need it, and the people that just want to park n grab do that also. if they make the effort to arrive at your cache, why make the finding of an otherwise-not-interesting cache hard on both them, and you?

 

for the record, I'm not saying apply this to all your caches, or making it another stinking RULE that chokes the life out of the game, just try it for the caches that typically see a lot of "help" in the form of extra containers.

 

maybe it would work. :-)

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing you can do to alleviate the feeling of being cheated is not to throwdown in the first place. Let the owner do his maintenance then go back and try to find it again.

 

Good point well made B)

 

I'll add to that:

 

When you go out caching, resist the temptation to take spare caches along with you and that way you won't feel tempted to put one down just so you can claim the smiley :)

 

It's seems to me that if someone owns their own caches they might check up on them while they're out geocaching and it would be real handy to have a replacement container for their own hides, and thus maintain their own caches.

 

Going back to try and find it again is not always practical. Almost 15% of my finds are more than 1000 miles from home.

 

I don't think anyone here contests that - it certainly makes good sense :)

 

That's a heck of a maintenance radius BTW - how did you manage to swing that one by the reviewers?

 

finds != hides

 

If someone replaces a cache, doesn't log it as a find, and never goes back to the location, is it still a throwdown?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×