Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
jellis

throwdowns

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Oops - apologies - I misread #musttryharder :unsure:

 

It's not a throwdown, if that person is the CO :ph34r:

 

I've DNF'd caches more than 1000 miles from home in locations I'll likely never return to. It causes me no pain whatsoever and I've never once considered pretending I found something by placing my own cache there.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. :ph34r:

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?

 

Oops - apologies - I misread #musttryharder :unsure:

 

It's not a throwdown, if that person is the CO :ph34r:

 

I've DNF'd caches more than 1000 miles from home in locations I'll likely never return to. It causes me no pain whatsoever and I've never once considered pretending I found something by placing my own cache there.

 

Read it again. I wrote "doesn't log it as a find". There is no pretending one has found a cache after (or before) placing another container if one doesn't log it as a find. I agree that's rare *not* to log a find when replacing a container, but it does happen.

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?

 

Oops - apologies - I misread #musttryharder :unsure:

 

It's not a throwdown, if that person is the CO :ph34r:

 

I've DNF'd caches more than 1000 miles from home in locations I'll likely never return to. It causes me no pain whatsoever and I've never once considered pretending I found something by placing my own cache there.

 

Read it again. I wrote "doesn't log it as a find". There is no pretending one has found a cache after (or before) placing another container if one doesn't log it as a find. I agree that's rare *not* to log a find when replacing a container, but it does happen.

 

That time I read it just fine B)

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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

Yep - people are free to do whatever they please so really whatever threads come up here, we should just provide that as the final answer - done, dusted, next...

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

 

Except of course when mutual cache maintenance arrangements lead to unmaintained throwdown caches littering the countryside...

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.

 

Why does your head hurt? Why would your second scenario NOT be you "finding" the cache? You found the container, no? It doesn't matter that you knew exactly where to look. How many LPCs have you found where the description and the hint make it a non-existent challenge to find the cache?

 

Honestly, there is no reason to be confused or to have your head hurt. It seems so obvious to me that not finding a cache = DNF. Finding a cache = Found it. Do you log your own caches? If so, then I suppose you have no problem logging a cache you replaced, even if it isn't your own. What makes MY head hurt is trying to apply some sort of logic to justify that something I put down suddenly isn't mine and therefore I can claim it. "

 

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

Edited by J Grouchy

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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

 

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the cache owner that openly requests people to throw-down a cache if one of their caches goes missing?

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the owner that does nothing about a long string of DNFs, and when the high numbers cacher drops a pill bottle, applauds him for helping him maintain the cache?

 

The problem with mutual cache maintenance arrangements -- the kind that include a smiley reward - followed by public praising of the behaviour in the logs, is other people see it and think it's the right thing to do. The behaviour extends to more and more caches, and becomes the norm. I don't completely disagree with helping out a cache owner (maybe quietly without fanfare, maybe cleaning but not replacing), but unfortunately it perpetuates irresponsible behaviour.

Edited by L0ne.R

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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

 

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the cache owner that openly requests people to throw-down a cache if one of their caches goes missing?

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the owner that does nothing about a long string of DNFs, and when the high numbers cacher drops a pill bottle, applauds him for helping him maintain the cache?

 

The problem with mutual cache maintenance arrangements -- the kind that include a smiley reward - followed by public praising of the behaviour in the logs, is other people see it and think it's the right thing to do. The behaviour extends to more and more caches, and becomes the norm. I don't completely disagree with helping out a cache owner (maybe quietly without fanfare, maybe cleaning but not replacing), but unfortunately it perpetuates irresponsible behaviour.

 

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who can see this B)

Share this post


Link to post

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

 

Excellent example.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
So your suggestion is that owners of "oddly placed micros" just go ahead and spoil their hides, to avoid throwdowns?

 

Some of us actually enjoy well-camouflaged hard-to-find caches. So your solution to the problem of boring throwdowns is to spoil the well-camouflaged hard-to-find hides?

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.

 

Why does your head hurt? Why would your second scenario NOT be you "finding" the cache? You found the container, no? It doesn't matter that you knew exactly where to look. How many LPCs have you found where the description and the hint make it a non-existent challenge to find the cache?

 

Honestly, there is no reason to be confused or to have your head hurt. It seems so obvious to me that not finding a cache = DNF. Finding a cache = Found it. Do you log your own caches? If so, then I suppose you have no problem logging a cache you replaced, even if it isn't your own. What makes MY head hurt is trying to apply some sort of logic to justify that something I put down suddenly isn't mine and therefore I can claim it. "

 

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

Good reply, especially with the analogy you gave,,, Perfect!

Share this post


Link to post

What makes MY head hurt is trying to apply some sort of logic to justify that something I put down suddenly isn't mine and therefore I can claim it. "

 

And that's part of the ethos/ethics/problem, the person that throws it down suddenly relinquishes all responsibility for what they left. Especially when the cache owner isn't going to bother with it either (they're long gone, they never intended to maintain the cache). It essentially becomes a litter game.

 

I would like to participate in a hobby that has integrity. We applaud ourselves for CITO events yet encourage each other to throwdown containers and never look back.

Edited by L0ne.R

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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

 

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the cache owner that openly requests people to throw-down a cache if one of their caches goes missing?

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the owner that does nothing about a long string of DNFs, and when the high numbers cacher drops a pill bottle, applauds him for helping him maintain the cache?

 

The problem with mutual cache maintenance arrangements -- the kind that include a smiley reward - followed by public praising of the behaviour in the logs, is other people see it and think it's the right thing to do. The behaviour extends to more and more caches, and becomes the norm. I don't completely disagree with helping out a cache owner (maybe quietly without fanfare, maybe cleaning but not replacing), but unfortunately it perpetuates irresponsible behaviour.

 

No, I wouldn't categorize that sort of neglectful cache ownership / throwdown behaviour as a mutual cache maintenance arrangement.

 

Geocachers who privately arrange to help each other with their geocaches do not deserve the insults and scorn being tossed around in this thread. They don't deserve to have their actions compared to theft, nor do they deserve to be insulted for choosing to log finds on caches they've repaired.

 

I realize that the power trail / throwdown problem is distressing for many cachers, but insisting on lumping good geocachers in with the bad doesn't help anything.

Share this post


Link to post

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?

This wasn't directed at me, but I want to make clear I agree with it: if you ask me whether you should claim the find, I'll say, "No," but if you then go ahead and log the find, anyway, I'll just smile and forget about it. Well, I might rib you good naturally about it for the rest of your life, but that's because it's so much fun to rib you, not because I think you really did anything wrong. (Indeed, as I've said, even though the logic says, "No," I might myself decide to log it, too. But I'm not going to say that while I'm ribbing you about it.)

 

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

The problem with this logic is that it applies exactly as well to any cache you don't find whether you replace it or not. I'd go so far as to say that to the people arguing the other side, you replacing it is irrelevant to the consideration of claiming 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.

 

While others are certainly free to make this personal choice, nobody has any business imposing this personal preference on other geocachers. It's between you and the cache owner, full stop.

 

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about throwdowns. Mutual cache maintenance arrangements should never be conflated with unsanctioned throwdown behaviour.

 

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the cache owner that openly requests people to throw-down a cache if one of their caches goes missing?

Does mutual cache maintenance arrangements include the owner that does nothing about a long string of DNFs, and when the high numbers cacher drops a pill bottle, applauds him for helping him maintain the cache?

 

The problem with mutual cache maintenance arrangements -- the kind that include a smiley reward - followed by public praising of the behaviour in the logs, is other people see it and think it's the right thing to do. The behaviour extends to more and more caches, and becomes the norm. I don't completely disagree with helping out a cache owner (maybe quietly without fanfare, maybe cleaning but not replacing), but unfortunately it perpetuates irresponsible behaviour.

 

It's unfortunate that the proliferation of throwdowns, and the smiley reward, has led to the perception that if someone replaces a cache owned by someone else it automatically means that the CO is irresponsible. Even the most responsible cache owner can't stop someone from muggling the cache, or something completely out of their control that destroys or compromises the cache. Sometime life happens and a conscientious CO just does't get to a cache location before someone else when there is an issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

 

Excellent example.

 

Or when my wife comes home from a shopping trips and says, "you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

 

Excellent example.

 

Or when my wife comes home from a shopping trips and says, "you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!"

 

I imagine that was for your benefit...it lessens the pain.

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 ^^

Yep. Bottom line. Well stated.

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?

Still a throwdown.

Then along comes another cacher that can't find the cache or the throwdown and drops another. All the while the original is still there. I, and I'll bet others here, have seen it happen.

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.

 

Why does your head hurt? Why would your second scenario NOT be you "finding" the cache? You found the container, no? It doesn't matter that you knew exactly where to look. How many LPCs have you found where the description and the hint make it a non-existent challenge to find the cache?

 

Honestly, there is no reason to be confused or to have your head hurt. It seems so obvious to me that not finding a cache = DNF. Finding a cache = Found it. Do you log your own caches? If so, then I suppose you have no problem logging a cache you replaced, even if it isn't your own. What makes MY head hurt is trying to apply some sort of logic to justify that something I put down suddenly isn't mine and therefore I can claim it. "

 

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

 

So what about scenario 3, where I go with the CO when he takes the replacement cache to GZ? We're both standing in front of the hiding place. If his hand puts the cache in, it's okay for me to then "find" it, but if my hand puts it in, it's a throwdown. To me that's farcical.

 

And no, for the record I don't find my own caches. For me, finding a cache is the whole experience - solving the puzzle or waypoints if it's a mystery or multi, finding my way to GZ, discerning the hiding place and finally opening the cache and signing the log. If that process is interrupted by the actions of a third party, which I then play a part in remedying as a matter of mutual convenience between me and the CO (I happen to be going back up the mountain before he will), should I be ethically excluded from ever completing that experience by recording it as a find and awarding the much-deserved FP? It seems the answer is yes.

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.

 

Why does your head hurt? Why would your second scenario NOT be you "finding" the cache? You found the container, no? It doesn't matter that you knew exactly where to look. How many LPCs have you found where the description and the hint make it a non-existent challenge to find the cache?

 

Honestly, there is no reason to be confused or to have your head hurt. It seems so obvious to me that not finding a cache = DNF. Finding a cache = Found it. Do you log your own caches? If so, then I suppose you have no problem logging a cache you replaced, even if it isn't your own. What makes MY head hurt is trying to apply some sort of logic to justify that something I put down suddenly isn't mine and therefore I can claim it. "

 

"Oops...I dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh look! I found $20! Score!"

 

So what about scenario 3, where I go with the CO when he takes the replacement cache to GZ? We're both standing in front of the hiding place. If his hand puts the cache in, it's okay for me to then "find" it, but if my hand puts it in, it's a throwdown. To me that's farcical.

 

And no, for the record I don't find my own caches. For me, finding a cache is the whole experience - solving the puzzle or waypoints if it's a mystery or multi, finding my way to GZ, discerning the hiding place and finally opening the cache and signing the log. If that process is interrupted by the actions of a third party, which I then play a part in remedying as a matter of mutual convenience between me and the CO (I happen to be going back up the mountain before he will), should I be ethically excluded from ever completing that experience by recording it as a find and awarding the much-deserved FP? It seems the answer is yes.

 

How about you get the trailhead and hang back. Wait for your friend to hide it. He comes back with the coordinates, you go find it.

Win-win. You actually found the cache and you tested the coordinates to be sure they are accurate enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post

How about you get the trailhead and hang back. Wait for your friend to hide it. He comes back with the coordinates, you go find it.

Win-win. You actually found the cache and you tested the coordinates to be sure they are accurate enough.

 

We have a winner! B)

Share this post


Link to post

...why does it matter in the slightest? The complaint about what that it can imply to followup finders does not apply in this case - the only people who know are the CO and the replacer. So what does it matter to you or anyone else if the person hangs back at the trailhead and finds later, or goes with the CO, and in either case logs it found and the CO verifies the cache is perfectly fine? dry.gif

Again, lumping ALL possible scenarios as somehow unethical and in any way bad, denigrating anyone involved (either as irresponsible COs who don't exclusively do their own maintenance, or 'throwdown' cachers who care about nothing except the smiley), is ridiculous. Plenty of examples have been given where the actions have zero effect on and do not matter at all to anyone else. That doesn't preclude the fact that there are problem scenarios legitimately of concern. No one is arguing against that. But it seems to be there's a lot of false equivalence going on here.

Share this post


Link to post

So what about scenario 3, where I go with the CO when he takes the replacement cache to GZ? We're both standing in front of the hiding place. If his hand puts the cache in, it's okay for me to then "find" it, but if my hand puts it in, it's a throwdown. To me that's farcical.

I don't get why you think that's a throwdown. As far as I'm concerned -- and I haven't noticed anyone saying anything else -- when you and the CO hide the cache together, it doesn't make any difference who actually placed the cache. In either case, it's inaccurate to say you found it.

 

And no, for the record I don't find my own caches. For me, finding a cache is the whole experience - solving the puzzle or waypoints if it's a mystery or multi, finding my way to GZ, discerning the hiding place and finally opening the cache and signing the log. If that process is interrupted by the actions of a third party, which I then play a part in remedying as a matter of mutual convenience between me and the CO (I happen to be going back up the mountain before he will), should I be ethically excluded from ever completing that experience by recording it as a find and awarding the much-deserved FP? It seems the answer is yes.

I'm also not hearing anyone discussing ethics. You didn't complete the experience. The cache wasn't there. That's just a fact. It's technically a DNF whether you replace it or not. And whether you replace it or not, you're free to go try to complete the experience again once it's back in place.

 

Whether you may claim the cache as a find anyway when you replaced it at the request of the CO is entirely up to the CO, and whether you do claim it as a find is entirely up to you. But your paragraph is remarkable in that it begs for the conclusion that you should either go back at another time and have the entire experience or not claim the find. I don't follow the logic that says that if you hide a replacement, then the experience you had miraculously changes from not finding the cache to finding the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
How about you get the trailhead and hang back. Wait for your friend to hide it. He comes back with the coordinates, you go find it.

 

That's what we do, except that if it's a good cache it is sufficiently far from the trailhead that we just hang back a couple hundred yards until the hider either comes back or yells that we can come find it. We do that because it's more fun that way rather than out of some deep sense of ethics (nb: I used to do it out of a deep sense of ethics, but I quit caring a while back).

 

The hair-splitting going on here is akin to the hair-splitting over finding a cache with a group. IMO, it's pretty pathetic. I am an advocate for using common sense. If it feels wrong, then trust your instinct.

 

To me, a throwdown without a prior agreement with the CO feels wrong, so I don't do it. Claiming a find if I do replace a cache when requested to do so by the owner doesn't feel wrong, so I do it. Your mileage may vary. That's fine.

Share this post


Link to post

How about you get the trailhead and hang back. Wait for your friend to hide it. He comes back with the coordinates, you go find it.

Win-win. You actually found the cache and you tested the coordinates to be sure they are accurate enough.

 

In the case I'm describing it's the replacement of an existing cache. The coordinates haven't changed. I've been to GZ, found and photographed the empty hiding place. The CO has confirmed that it's the correct place and the cache is missing. Staying back at the trailhead serves no purpose other than to delay the trip home.

 

Until now I'd assumed that replacing a cache with prior consent from the CO, when it's confirmed beyond doubt to be missing, was fine, but doing so without consent was what constituted a throwdown. In the real-life scenario in the Watagan Mountains, I'd been to GZ, logged the DNF, confirmed with the CO that I was looking in the right place and, as a matter of mutual convenience, returned some weeks later with the replacement and completed the ritual by putting my signature in the physical log. I could just as easily have accepted the CO's original offer to change my DNF to a find and move on, at least that way I'd have avoided the stigma of becoming a thrower-downerer, but I do have a personal issue with claiming a find when my signature isn't in the log, which is why I wanted to go back and do it properly, well "properly" as I thought at the time. But lesson learnt, no more helping hands to COs.

Share this post


Link to post

But lesson learnt, no more helping hands to COs.

 

You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of everything that's been said. If you still need it explained at this point well...it's kinda useless for us to go to the effort.

Share this post


Link to post

when I came to this intersection, I was so glad everyone before me was not still there at the intersection wondering how they would ever continue life without the traffic lights approval.

 

Screenshot_2016_09_27_05_17_19_1.png

Share this post


Link to post

How about you get the trailhead and hang back. Wait for your friend to hide it. He comes back with the coordinates, you go find it.

Win-win. You actually found the cache and you tested the coordinates to be sure they are accurate enough.

 

In the case I'm describing it's the replacement of an existing cache. The coordinates haven't changed. I've been to GZ, found and photographed the empty hiding place. The CO has confirmed that it's the correct place and the cache is missing. Staying back at the trailhead serves no purpose other than to delay the trip home.

 

Until now I'd assumed that replacing a cache with prior consent from the CO, when it's confirmed beyond doubt to be missing, was fine, but doing so without consent was what constituted a throwdown. In the real-life scenario in the Watagan Mountains, I'd been to GZ, logged the DNF, confirmed with the CO that I was looking in the right place and, as a matter of mutual convenience, returned some weeks later with the replacement and completed the ritual by putting my signature in the physical log. I could just as easily have accepted the CO's original offer to change my DNF to a find and move on, at least that way I'd have avoided the stigma of becoming a thrower-downerer, but I do have a personal issue with claiming a find when my signature isn't in the log, which is why I wanted to go back and do it properly, well "properly" as I thought at the time. But lesson learnt, no more helping hands to COs.

 

Please don't let the misplaced severity of forum users dissuade you from helping friends. This is a community-based game.

 

Their harsh comments come from genuine frustrations with real problems in the game. Unfortunately, that frustration is being misdirected at good geocachers who don't deserve this kind of treatment.

 

It is sad that some geocachers are determined to find fault with every cache and intent on treating other geocachers like enemies.

 

This is a game. Most of us are able to put a minor inconvenience like a damp logbook or disappointing swag into perspective and enjoy the game for what it really is, but some simply don't have the capacity to do that. It's sad, but it isn't about you. Good geocachers helping friends is not what really makes these individuals so bitter and angry about the game.

Share this post


Link to post

To me, a throwdown without a prior agreement with the CO feels wrong, so I don't do it. Claiming a find if I do replace a cache when requested to do so by the owner doesn't feel wrong, so I do it. Your mileage may vary. That's fine.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post

To me, a throwdown without a prior agreement with the CO feels wrong, so I don't do it. Claiming a find if I do replace a cache when requested to do so by the owner doesn't feel wrong, so I do it. Your mileage may vary. That's fine.

 

This.

Not this, exactly. :ph34r:

 

I'm glad to help out a fellow cacher when i have their blessing to do so. I'm not throwing down without the CO's permission. This feels right to me. For some odd reason though, i will never feel right claiming a find on a cache i know i didn't find.

 

You may feel great about it. You helped a cache owner, the cache owner appreciates it, even offers you the find, and on top of that, you get the smiley! What could be better? Oh, i guess actually finding the cache in the first place might make it a teensy bit better.

Share this post


Link to post

To me, a throwdown without a prior agreement with the CO feels wrong, so I don't do it. Claiming a find if I do replace a cache when requested to do so by the owner doesn't feel wrong, so I do it. Your mileage may vary. That's fine.

 

This.

Not this, exactly. :ph34r:

 

I'm glad to help out a fellow cacher when i have their blessing to do so. I'm not throwing down without the CO's permission. This feels right to me. For some odd reason though, i will never feel right claiming a find on a cache i know i didn't find.

 

You may feel great about it. You helped a cache owner, the cache owner appreciates it, even offers you the find, and on top of that, you get the smiley! What could be better? Oh, i guess actually finding the cache in the first place might make it a teensy bit better.

 

Might want to check out the fizzy quote again...

Share this post


Link to post

Their harsh comments...

I guess I'm being dense, but could you please give some examples of these "harsh comments". All I'm seeing are variations of "you didn't really find it, but whatever" which barefootjeff seems intent on interpreting as mean spirited criticism.

 

Personally, I have no problem with barefootjeff claiming the find -- in most cases, I'd do it myself -- but the reasonable justification is the one fizzymagic gave: basically, if it feels right, go ahead and do it. But I'm not convinced by the arguments trying to prove that it's the logical action.

 

And I think the difference in opinion comes down the to value proposition: if you think the find -- i.e., the +1 -- has a real value, then that value must be weighed in and can tip the scales towards claiming a find. If, on the other hand, you think the difference between find and DNF is only in their accuracy, there's no logical reason for claiming a find when you didn't find the cache. In that case, you'd be reduced, as I would be, to admitting you're claiming the find because you want to claim the find, not because "find" is an accurate description of what you did.

Share this post


Link to post

And I think the difference in opinion comes down the to value proposition: if you think the find -- i.e., the +1 -- has a real value, then that value must be weighed in and can tip the scales towards claiming a find. If, on the other hand, you think the difference between find and DNF is only in their accuracy, there's no logical reason for claiming a find when you didn't find the cache. In that case, you'd be reduced, as I would be, to admitting you're claiming the find because you want to claim the find, not because "find" is an accurate description of what you did.

 

Basically. And so many try to justify - or perhaps delude themselves - that the word "find" has little meaning beyond signing a sheet of paper at the posted coordinates. For me, though, it's more than that and I value the "find" more than the +1. The +1 is how I assign a value to the actual act of locating an object that someone else left for me to find. Without that distinction, the number by my profile name is literally meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post

Their harsh comments...

I guess I'm being dense, but could you please give some examples of these "harsh comments". All I'm seeing are variations of "you didn't really find it, but whatever" which barefootjeff seems intent on interpreting as mean spirited criticism.

 

Personally, I have no problem with barefootjeff claiming the find -- in most cases, I'd do it myself -- but the reasonable justification is the one fizzymagic gave: basically, if it feels right, go ahead and do it. But I'm not convinced by the arguments trying to prove that it's the logical action.

 

And I think the difference in opinion comes down the to value proposition: if you think the find -- i.e., the +1 -- has a real value, then that value must be weighed in and can tip the scales towards claiming a find. If, on the other hand, you think the difference between find and DNF is only in their accuracy, there's no logical reason for claiming a find when you didn't find the cache. In that case, you'd be reduced, as I would be, to admitting you're claiming the find because you want to claim the find, not because "find" is an accurate description of what you did.

 

This is an issue of personal choice that isn't relevant to the topic of throwdowns.

 

The harshness is in the snide, judgmental comments that insist that helping a friend with cache maintenance is equivalent to a throwdown (and theft, apparently).

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

The harshness is in the snide, judgmental comments that insist that helping a friend with cache maintenance is equivalent to a throwdown (and theft, apparently).

Again, I'd like examples. This still doesn't sound like a description of anything I recall reading in this thread or any other thread.

 

This is an issue of personal choice that isn't relevant to the topic of throwdowns.

I have no idea what this means.

Share this post


Link to post

The harshness is in the snide, judgmental comments that insist that helping a friend with cache maintenance is equivalent to a throwdown (and theft, apparently).

Again, I'd like examples. This still doesn't sound like a description of anything I recall reading in this thread or any other thread.

 

This is an issue of personal choice that isn't relevant to the topic of throwdowns.

I have no idea what this means.

 

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed logsheets and looked at the cache pages to compare. I noticed over a year between logs but cachers were logging them. Most are cachers I know and ones that are veterans. So the only thing I can figure out is someone left a cache because they couldn't find it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

 

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

 

Just a reminder what this thread was about :ph34r:

 

As you see, it's not about "helping a friend" but logging a find instead of a DNF because the "finder" happened to have a "spare".

I think nobody has a problem with helping out replacing a cache for a friend because that's hardly a "throwdown".

Share this post


Link to post

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

If and only if this happens with explicite consent of the cache owner. Then it's an authorised replacement, not a throwdown.

 

Throwdowns are bad, replacements without the cache owner knowing are the same, implied authorization by "doing a friend a favour" is the same. Allowing throwdowns in the listing is lame as well, but by the cache owner. Only explicitely and specifically authorized replacements are not, this is the only real service for a friend, who may be not able to maintain the cache for some reason at that time (illness, vacation, real life, ...). So simple...

 

I don't remember reading something stating otherwise here.

Share this post


Link to post

The harshness is in the snide, judgmental comments that insist that helping a friend with cache maintenance is equivalent to a throwdown (and theft, apparently).

Again, I'd like examples. This still doesn't sound like a description of anything I recall reading in this thread or any other thread.

 

This is an issue of personal choice that isn't relevant to the topic of throwdowns.

I have no idea what this means.

 

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

 

If you mean the side topic of - if a geocacher tags along when a friend hides a cache, is it a find? Then I agree it's not about throwdowns, it's a spin-off question. Is it a find if you didn't "find" the cache but watched as it was hidden? Personally, it would be much more fun and useful not to watch the cache being hidden, but to attempt to find it after it was hidden. Then the find is an honest find. But this creates another side-issue, it will p-off the FTFers if the person who accompanied the hider logs a FTF because it's an unfair advantage.

 

Addendum, actually I believe the spin-off question was, if the person accompanies the CO as the CO replaces the missing container, is it a find. Yes. At least I can't think of any objections why that wouldn't be a find.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

If you mean the side topic of - if a geocacher tags along when a friend hides a cache, is it a find? Then I agree it's not about throwdowns, it's a spin-off question. Is it a find if you didn't "find" the cache but watched as it was hidden? Personally, it would be much more fun and useful not to watch the cache being hidden, but to attempt to find it after it was hidden. Then the find is an honest find. But this creates another side-issue, it will p-off the FTFers if the person who accompanied the hider logs a FTF because it's an unfair advantage.

 

In my area, folks refer to it as "bird-dogging" and will usually either state so in their log if they post before the true FTF or will hold off and wait to log the find until the FTF logs it. Either way, those people generally don't claim FTF. I honestly don't know why the term "bird-dogging" is used as it doesn't really seem like an accurate term...but whatever, that's the term they use.

Share this post


Link to post

The harshness is in the snide, judgmental comments that insist that helping a friend with cache maintenance is equivalent to a throwdown (and theft, apparently).

Again, I'd like examples. This still doesn't sound like a description of anything I recall reading in this thread or any other thread.

 

This is an issue of personal choice that isn't relevant to the topic of throwdowns.

I have no idea what this means.

 

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

 

If you mean the side topic of - if a geocacher tags along when a friend hides a cache, is it a find? Then I agree it's not about throwdowns, it's a spin-off question. Is it a find if you didn't "find" the cache but watched as it was hidden? Personally, it would be much more fun and useful not to watch the cache being hidden, but to attempt to find it after it was hidden. Then the find is an honest find. But this creates another side-issue, it will p-off the FTFers if the person who accompanied the hider logs a FTF because it's an unfair advantage.

 

Addendum, actually I believe the spin-off question was, if the person accompanies the CO as the CO replaces the missing container, is it a find. Yes. At least I can't think of any objections why that wouldn't be a find.

 

Off-topic and should not be conflated with throwdowns.

Share this post


Link to post

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

If and only if this happens with explicite consent of the cache owner. Then it's an authorised replacement, not a throwdown.

 

Throwdowns are bad, replacements without the cache owner knowing are the same, implied authorization by "doing a friend a favour" is the same. Allowing throwdowns in the listing is lame as well, but by the cache owner. Only explicitely and specifically authorized replacements are not, this is the only real service for a friend, who may be not able to maintain the cache for some reason at that time (illness, vacation, real life, ...). So simple...

 

I don't remember reading something stating otherwise here.

 

Then you've missed a page and a half of off-topic griping about whether or not people who help friends with cache maintenance should log a find.

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting really tired of someone putting throwdowns at my cache sites just because they couldn't find mine and not contacting me to see if they have permission. Latest one I was watching how my evil hide was getting easier to find. So on a maintenance run I photographed logsheets and looked at the cache pages to compare. I noticed over a year between logs but cachers were logging them. Most are cachers I know and ones that are veterans. So the only thing I can figure out is someone left a cache because they couldn't find it. This isn't the first time. What would you do about all those logs who didn't find my real cache?

 

If a geocacher helps a friend with cache maintenance, whether or not they log a find on that cache is a matter of personal choice that is not relevant to the topic of throwdowns. The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

 

Just a reminder what this thread was about :ph34r:

 

As you see, it's not about "helping a friend" but logging a find instead of a DNF because the "finder" happened to have a "spare".

I think nobody has a problem with helping out replacing a cache for a friend because that's hardly a "throwdown".

 

I agree that friends helping each other with cache maintenance should not be conflated with throwdown behaviour, but in this thread, that's exactly what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post

The discussion moved to find-claiming on good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance because that example was given and being lumped in critically with the class of "throwdowns" people generally despise. And so the side-topic defending good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance was raised and debated. That's why it's relevant.

 

If everyone agrees that such actions are not throwdowns, then that side-topic can come to an agreed ending.

Share this post


Link to post

The forum mob seems intent on conflating these issues in order to make others feel bad about helping friends with cache maintenance.

 

While others seem hell-bent on equating any group who share an alternative opinion as a mob :ph34r:

 

What a complicated world we live in :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

The discussion moved to find-claiming on good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance because that example was given and being lumped in critically with the class of "throwdowns" people generally despise. And so the side-topic defending good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance was raised and debated. That's why it's relevant.

 

If everyone agrees that such actions are not throwdowns, then that side-topic can come to an agreed ending.

 

What about community maintained caches, are they considered throwdowns? Some of the best hide locations I can think of are ownerless missing ammo can caches that have been replaced with tupperware by the geocaching community.

Share this post


Link to post

The discussion moved to find-claiming on good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance because that example was given and being lumped in critically with the class of "throwdowns" people generally despise. And so the side-topic defending good-hearted CO-condoned proxy maintenance was raised and debated. That's why it's relevant.

 

If everyone agrees that such actions are not throwdowns, then that side-topic can come to an agreed ending.

 

How do we tell the difference?

Share this post


Link to post

To me, a throwdown without a prior agreement with the CO feels wrong, so I don't do it. Claiming a find if I do replace a cache when requested to do so by the owner doesn't feel wrong, so I do it. Your mileage may vary. That's fine.

 

This.

Not this, exactly. :ph34r:

 

I'm glad to help out a fellow cacher when i have their blessing to do so. I'm not throwing down without the CO's permission. This feels right to me. For some odd reason though, i will never feel right claiming a find on a cache i know i didn't find.

 

You may feel great about it. It doesn't feel wrong to you. You helped a cache owner, the cache owner appreciates it, even offers you the find, and on top of that, you get the smiley! What could be better? Oh, i guess actually finding the cache in the first place might make it a teensy bit better. :P

 

Might want to check out the fizzy quote again...

I read it again. Ok, i shouldn't have used the word "great". Fixed it, and i even added an emoticon...

Edited by Mudfrog

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

×