Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
jellis

throwdowns

Recommended Posts

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".

Yes, of course. From my point of view, we covered the topic of throwdowns in a few posts -- hint: the answer is "bad" -- and since then the thread has been discussing this tangential issue related through the observation that it makes no sense to claim a find after leaving a throwdown even though that's exactly why people drop throwdowns.

 

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.

The only person I see confusing throwdowns with acting as the CO's authorized agent is barefootjeff himself. Yes, the title of the thread is "throwdowns", but that's no longer what we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I still had no idea what you were talking about, so I went back to see if I did, in fact, miss a page and a half of griping. I've concluded that you imagined it. And I don't use "imagine" lightly: I can't even find anything that could be misinterpreted as griping.

 

The only points anywhere near what you describe here are, first, people drawing the distinction between helping a friend without their permission and acting on behalf of a friend with their approval, and, second, people questioning the logic of calling it a find when you didn't find the cache. I'm not even sure anyone said you shouldn't do those things, they simply questioned contrary opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

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".

Yes, of course. From my point of view, we covered the topic of throwdowns in a few posts -- hint: the answer is "bad" -- and since then the thread has been discussing this tangential issue related through the observation that it makes no sense to claim a find after leaving a throwdown even though that's exactly why people drop throwdowns.

 

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.

The only person I see confusing throwdowns with acting as the CO's authorized agent is barefootjeff himself. Yes, the title of the thread is "throwdowns", but that's no longer what we're talking about.

 

Okay. I am not in a position to refute what a forum user sees or does not see.

Share this post


Link to post

The only person I see confusing throwdowns with acting as the CO's authorized agent is barefootjeff himself. Yes, the title of the thread is "throwdowns", but that's no longer what we're talking about.

 

Nope, I was just responding to this assertion that a CO-permitted replacement by a cacher who then logs it found with permission amounts to the same thing as throwdowns and both have a negative impact on 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?

 

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

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.

No, didn't miss that. The case where someone logs a find accompanying the cache owner doing maintenance simply doesn't involve a throwdown. Those side discussions are - as you wrote - off-topic and not around a throwdown. Well, if the CO just throws another box, at least it's his decision (including all hassle with weird logs and so on) and not the finder's.

 

Addendum on that off-topic discussion: Having help by the CO on-site is a totally personal choice, not affecting the gameplay of others in any way. So I'd consider it OK, though it would not be satisfying for me (been there, done that, so I know).

Edited by Ben0w

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Technically: yes. It may work a while, but the point is: what when something has to be addressed with access to the listing? Checking maintenance flag, deleting bogus logs (spoilers, armchair logging), marking trackables as missing and so on? That is only possible for the cache owner, having owner access to the listing.

 

No need to endlessly reviving a dying cache. There are enough caches! If the spot is worth a cache, then archiving the abandoned one and placing a new one is no loss to the game. A link to the archived listing always is possible to honor the efforts of some old time cache owner or whatever.

 

Don't do throwdowns.

Edited by Ben0w

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Technically: yes. It may work a while, but the point is: what when something has to be addressed with access to the listing? Checking maintenance flag, deleting bogus logs (spoilers, armchair logging), marking trackables as missing and so on? That is only possible for the cache owner, having owner access to the listing.

 

No need to endlessly reviving a dying cache. There are enough caches! If the spot is worth a cache, then archiving the abandoned one and placing a new one is no loss to the game. A link to the archived listing always is possible to honor the efforts of some old time cache owner or whatever.

 

Don't do throwdowns.

 

Several years ago I posted a NA (and I was the second to make the mistake) on a missing owner-less cache and got a few nasty emails from some local geocachers. Long story short, the reviewer allowed the cache listing to remain because of the local geocaching community wanting to keep it because it was a older listing in the area. It's still there and I use it as a TB Graveyard for my missing trackables, no owner so they can't delete my logs or mark my TB's missing. :P

 

I recently found another "community replaced" owner-less cache on the AT, and I have the oldest cache in WV on my to do list. It appears that the people propping up these old caches are considered GeoHeros for maintaining owner-less missing caches where others like myself could place and maintain our own new listings and provide links to the old listings. :(

 

One thing I have learned for sure is to NEVER post a NA on an old cache or you become the bad person for doing so. :o

Share this post


Link to post

No problem beeing bad. 😜

Edited by Ben0w

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Technically: yes. It may work a while, but the point is: what when something has to be addressed with access to the listing? Checking maintenance flag, deleting bogus logs (spoilers, armchair logging), marking trackables as missing and so on? That is only possible for the cache owner, having owner access to the listing.

 

No need to endlessly reviving a dying cache. There are enough caches! If the spot is worth a cache, then archiving the abandoned one and placing a new one is no loss to the game. A link to the archived listing always is possible to honor the efforts of some old time cache owner or whatever.

 

Don't do throwdowns.

 

Several years ago I posted a NA (and I was the second to make the mistake) on a missing owner-less cache and got a few nasty emails from some local geocachers. Long story short, the reviewer allowed the cache listing to remain because of the local geocaching community wanting to keep it because it was a older listing in the area. It's still there and I use it as a TB Graveyard for my missing trackables, no owner so they can't delete my logs or mark my TB's missing. :P

 

I recently found another "community replaced" owner-less cache on the AT, and I have the oldest cache in WV on my to do list. It appears that the people propping up these old caches are considered GeoHeros for maintaining owner-less missing caches where others like myself could place and maintain our own new listings and provide links to the old listings. :(

 

One thing I have learned for sure is to NEVER post a NA on an old cache or you become the bad person for doing so. :o

 

Old or new, i have no problem logging a NA if i believe the cache deserves it. The reviewer that allowed the cache to remain was wrong. Letting it go on without proper owner maintenance goes against one of the more important listing guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

 

And I'll fill in the age-old response. We're not talking about your friend helping you out by replacing a container for you.

 

We're talking about self-centered, entitled people who can't conceive of a cache that they simply can't find, and add a container because it "must be missing".

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Technically: yes. It may work a while, but the point is: what when something has to be addressed with access to the listing? Checking maintenance flag, deleting bogus logs (spoilers, armchair logging), marking trackables as missing and so on? That is only possible for the cache owner, having owner access to the listing.

 

No need to endlessly reviving a dying cache. There are enough caches! If the spot is worth a cache, then archiving the abandoned one and placing a new one is no loss to the game. A link to the archived listing always is possible to honor the efforts of some old time cache owner or whatever.

 

Don't do throwdowns.

 

Several years ago I posted a NA (and I was the second to make the mistake) on a missing owner-less cache and got a few nasty emails from some local geocachers. Long story short, the reviewer allowed the cache listing to remain because of the local geocaching community wanting to keep it because it was a older listing in the area. It's still there and I use it as a TB Graveyard for my missing trackables, no owner so they can't delete my logs or mark my TB's missing. :P

 

I recently found another "community replaced" owner-less cache on the AT, and I have the oldest cache in WV on my to do list. It appears that the people propping up these old caches are considered GeoHeros for maintaining owner-less missing caches where others like myself could place and maintain our own new listings and provide links to the old listings. :(

 

One thing I have learned for sure is to NEVER post a NA on an old cache or you become the bad person for doing so. :o

 

Old or new, i have no problem logging a NA if i believe the cache deserves it. The reviewer that allowed the cache to remain was wrong. Letting it go on without proper owner maintenance goes against one of the more important listing guidelines.

 

I believe it went all the way to HQ and not just the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here

 

This is another one of those things that shouldn't be so hard to understand. Your friend would not be hung, drawn, and quartered if you had him replace a cache for you. For the most part, it's probably better that an owner does his cache maintenance himself but it's ok to prearrange with a friend to help out at times. The main thing is to have this prearangement or to get permission from the owner first.

 

It's a throwdown if a person goes to a cache site, is unable to find the container, then places one of their own without the owner's knowledge or consent. Doesn't matter if the owner ends up happy or not, it was a throwdown when the new container was placed.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Technically: yes. It may work a while, but the point is: what when something has to be addressed with access to the listing? Checking maintenance flag, deleting bogus logs (spoilers, armchair logging), marking trackables as missing and so on? That is only possible for the cache owner, having owner access to the listing.

 

No need to endlessly reviving a dying cache. There are enough caches! If the spot is worth a cache, then archiving the abandoned one and placing a new one is no loss to the game. A link to the archived listing always is possible to honor the efforts of some old time cache owner or whatever.

 

Don't do throwdowns.

 

Several years ago I posted a NA (and I was the second to make the mistake) on a missing owner-less cache and got a few nasty emails from some local geocachers. Long story short, the reviewer allowed the cache listing to remain because of the local geocaching community wanting to keep it because it was a older listing in the area. It's still there and I use it as a TB Graveyard for my missing trackables, no owner so they can't delete my logs or mark my TB's missing. :P

 

I recently found another "community replaced" owner-less cache on the AT, and I have the oldest cache in WV on my to do list. It appears that the people propping up these old caches are considered GeoHeros for maintaining owner-less missing caches where others like myself could place and maintain our own new listings and provide links to the old listings. :(

 

One thing I have learned for sure is to NEVER post a NA on an old cache or you become the bad person for doing so. :o

 

Old or new, i have no problem logging a NA if i believe the cache deserves it. The reviewer that allowed the cache to remain was wrong. Letting it go on without proper owner maintenance goes against one of the more important listing guidelines.

 

I believe it went all the way to HQ and not just the reviewer.

That wouldn't surprise me a bit. Still doesn't make it right though.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

 

And I'll fill in the age-old response. We're not talking about your friend helping you out by replacing a container for you.

 

We're talking about self-centered, entitled people who can't conceive of a cache that they simply can't find, and add a container because it "must be missing".

+1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

One person here in this thread has come out against third party maintenance even when approved by the owner -- I don't think anyone else has a problem with it -- but even that person's comment was a long, long way from suggesting your friend should be punished for making such a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

One person here in this thread has come out against third party maintenance even when approved by the owner -- I don't think anyone else has a problem with it -- but even that person's comment was a long, long way from suggesting your friend should be punished for making such a mistake.

 

I'd say there was a clear sentiment on here that if that person who did the maintenance for the CO also claimed the find, they might be effectively 'hung, drawn, and quartered'.

So if Magna was just referring to proxy maintenance, then yeah, I don't think anyone here is really holding on to the point that that's wrong.

 

So, Magna, if your friend hadn't found your cache yet, and they logged it found while helping you with maintenance - that's more the contentious issues. Proxy maintenance with the Find.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

One person here in this thread has come out against third party maintenance even when approved by the owner -- I don't think anyone else has a problem with it -- but even that person's comment was a long, long way from suggesting your friend should be punished for making such a mistake.

 

I'd say there was a clear sentiment on here that if that person who did the maintenance for the CO also claimed the find, they might be effectively 'hung, drawn, and quartered'.

So if Magna was just referring to proxy maintenance, then yeah, I don't think anyone here is really holding on to the point that that's wrong.

 

So, Magna, if your friend hadn't found your cache yet, and they logged it found while helping you with maintenance - that's more the contentious issues. Proxy maintenance with the Find.

 

No reason for that to be contentious.

Share this post


Link to post
No reason for that to be contentious.

If you'd seen my posts, I agree.

But it is contentious because others disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
No reason for that to be contentious.

If you'd seen my posts, I agree.

But it is contentious because others disagree.

 

No it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post

...o..kay

 

See, we are all in agreement. No contention in this thread whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll fill in the age old answer. What other people do is nothing to do with any one on forums. If I have a friend replace a cache for me, then I'm happy for that to happen. My friend shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered for helping out a friend. Some people need to get a life on here.

 

How many of your friends have been hung drawn and quatered for helping you out?

Share this post


Link to post

I am fairly new, but have found 300 this year. On occasion, when I find a damaged container or log, I have fixed them.

Is that a THROWDOWN? I don't think I have ever left one that I did not find. I always assume it is there but elusive.

So my basic question is if CO's are offended by helping maintain found caches?

Share this post


Link to post
I am fairly new, but have found 300 this year. On occasion, when I find a damaged container or log, I have fixed them.

Is that a THROWDOWN? I don't think I have ever left one that I did not find. I always assume it is there but elusive.

So my basic question is if CO's are offended by helping maintain found caches?

I'd think most wouldn't have much issue with someone adding/replacing a piece of paper until the CO can fix their cache.

 

That's not a throwdown...

A throwdown is replacing container and all, in many cases simply assuming "it musn't be there because I didn't find it".

Some believe they're "helping the CO", while others believe that person's simply adding to their find count, by not placing a DNF. :)

Share this post


Link to post

A throwdown is replacing container and all, in many cases simply assuming "it musn't be there because I didn't find it".

Some believe they're "helping the CO", while others believe that person's simply adding to their find count, by not placing a DNF. :)

And some believe they are helping future finders.

 

The key to replacing a container is to correctly read the situation. It isn't all that hard to do.

 

There are many conditions where container replacement works out o.k. and in my experience there were few cases, if any, where it was wrong for me to do so.

 

I don't claim finds for caches I replace. I also have posted a fair amount of Needs Archived logs where I felt it was appropriate and all but a couple of them got archived because the CO was inactive or just didn't care. I have replaced a lot of containers over the years and never had a CO complain.

 

People often say that replacing or revitalizing a non-maintained cache just puts forward the inevitable need for archiving. I don't see how that is a problem because the future will take care of itself: If folks want it kept alive then they will do something and if they don't then the cache will get archived but in the mean time searchers will have something to find. There are many caches that the community has kept alive long after the CO left the game.

 

Edit: grammar.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

People often say that replacing or revitalizing a non-maintained cache just puts forward the inevitable need for archiving. I don't see how that is a problem because the future will take care of itself:

 

My bold - sounds like a convenient way to absolve oneself of any and all responsibility for one's actions <_<

 

If folks want it kept alive then they will do something and if they don't then the cache will get archived but in the mean time searchers will have something to find. There are many caches that the community has kept alive long after the CO left the game.

 

Indeed - this thread is full of them.

Share this post


Link to post

People often say that replacing or revitalizing a non-maintained cache just puts forward the inevitable need for archiving. I don't see how that is a problem because the future will take care of itself:

 

My bold - sounds like a convenient way to absolve oneself of any and all responsibility for one's actions <_<

By some folks measure it may sound that way. I think there is more to it than that.

 

Let's set aside the "throwdown" concept for the moment because I don't advocate cache replacement as a method of gaining a find and I said that in my post.

 

Container replacement is also done for the benefit of others. Finders get a maintained cache for a while. What does it actually matter that the problem is put off for a month, or a year, maybe longer? If there is a viable cache in place shouldn't that meet the goal of the game? In the case of the absentee owner, when people are no longer willing to help out, NM and NA logs will be eventually be posted. (Which is how the future takes care of itself.)

 

It also benefits the CO. It buys them some time before making a maintenance trip. If they don't like that someone tried to help them or don't like the container type they can simply disable the cache until they can get out there - the point being that they need to get out there regardless of the action intended to help them. No extra effort is required of the cache owner whether the container was replaced or not. I have never had a CO complain about my many actions over many years to clean up or replace a container.

 

Sometimes people new to the game, wanting to help when they find a cache in bad condition, come here for advice and they, hopefully, will get to read different perspectives. Some here want to discourage any action or discourage container replacement. I say that there are times when helping out benefits the game.

 

As I opened with in my post above, the key is in reading the situation at the actual cache site. One rule doesn't fit all.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches that the community has kept alive long after the CO left the game.

Indeed - this thread is full of them.

This is an awkward assumption unless we could somehow know that those 66 pages of examples are mostly or even partially full of unmaintained caches and that the F=DNF posters knew that and made their post because of it. No, I don't think there is any connection here.

Share this post


Link to post

People often say that replacing or revitalizing a non-maintained cache just puts forward the inevitable need for archiving. I don't see how that is a problem because the future will take care of itself:

 

My bold - sounds like a convenient way to absolve oneself of any and all responsibility for one's actions <_<

By some folks measure it may sound that way. I think there is more to it than that.

 

Let's set aside the "throwdown" concept for the moment because I don't advocate cache replacement as a method of gaining a find and I said that in my post.

 

The specific subject of the thread is throwdowns so that's fundamentally what we're discussing here and I'm not sure how setting aside the topic of the discussion furthers it...

 

Container replacement is also done for the benefit of others. Finders get a maintained cache for a while.

 

Agreed - and this is the way those who throw down and take the attitude that the future will take care of itself tend to justify their actions.

 

What does it actually matter that the problem is put off for a month, or a year, maybe longer? If there is a viable cache in place shouldn't that meet the goal of the game? In the case of the absentee owner, when people are no longer willing to help out, NM and NA logs will be eventually be posted. (Which is how the future takes care of itself.)

 

One way that I can think of off the top of my head is that, in some areas at least, it has the effect of clogging up the map and potentially excluding newcomers to the game who would like to place a cache of their own. I think this point has been raised in more than one discussion on these forums. Another way is that the replacement 'cache' is often of poor quality and it and whatever it might contain, in the absence of ongoing maintenenance, tend to go downhill rapidly which also creates potential for newbies to find junk and to end up thinking that's what they should expect and as a result not bothering to continue. I know I'm going over old ground here. I think cache churn is preferable to propping up junk.

 

It also benefits the CO. It buys them some time before making a maintenance trip. If they don't like that someone tried to help them or don't like the container type they can simply disable the cache until they can get out there - the point being that they need to get out there regardless of the action intended to help them. No extra effort is required of the cache owner whether the container was replaced or not. I have never had a CO complain about my many actions over many years to clean up or replace a container.

 

A couple of weeks ago there was a throwdown nearby where the throwdowner claimed a find. They claim to have emailed the CO in advance to let them know that's what they would be doing. The CO had been inactive for over a year and I'm going to assume that contact was initiated via the CO's profile and thus that the throwdowner knew perfectly well that their email would never be read. Obviously the CO didn't complain about the throwdown. Luckily the cache has since been archived.

 

Sometimes people new to the game, wanting to help when they find a cache in bad condition, come here for advice and they, hopefully, will get to read different perspectives. Some here want to discourage any action or discourage container replacement.

 

Which ties in nicely to the point I made before. Personally I'd much rather people new to the game didn't have to start off by finding junk and feeling they needed to fix it up.

 

As I opened with in my post above, the key is in reading the situation at the actual cache site. One rule doesn't fit all.

 

Agreed - but the overarching future will take care of itself viewpoint did undermine that caveat somewhat, for me at least.

Share this post


Link to post

A timely example?

 

Didn't find it 09/11/2016

No go on this one

 

Found it 07/16/2016

Replaced the container consistent with the hint. Cache is in good shape. Cache on!

 

Didn't find it 06/20/2016

Looked everywhere, followed hint and last commenters, and nothing! :(

 

Didn't find it 10/20/2015

2nd attempt at this one and no better luck. I used the hint and also the comments from the last cacher, which, of course conflicted. But still not cache for me. So sad.

 

Which, for me, raises another question...

 

If you're the sort of cacher who is happy to throw down your own container JUST so YOU can log a find - well isn't that just a bit too much work? Carrying all those spare containers around with you just sounds like a lot of unnecessary effort.

 

If you're an entirely self-serving throw-downer, why bother to throw down at all - simply SAY that you have, claim your find and stride off into the future... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache. There is absolutely no difference other than the fact that you did not create the cache page. If you are comfortable logging your own caches and if you are comfortable relieving a CO of their responsibilities for that cache, then there's really no debating the matter. You are playing your own game by your own rules at that point.

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache. There is absolutely no difference other than the fact that you did not create the cache page. If you are comfortable logging your own caches and if you are comfortable relieving a CO of their responsibilities for that cache, then there's really no debating the matter. You are playing your own game by your own rules at that point.

 

Disagree - there's one other factor, mentioned many times before: many (if not most) throwdowns get thrown down when the real cache is actually there. That makes it "playing your OUR game by YOUR own rules."

 

I can deal with someone replacing a damaged or broken container, but not arbitrarily replacing a missing one without an explicit "OK".

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for helping a cache owner but only with their knowledge. If i make arrangements with them ahead of time or can contact them in the field, then i'll try to help. Throwing down on the other hand, isn't the way to do it. Whether a person logs a find on their throwdown or not, there's still a decent chance their "good deed" is going to cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache. There is absolutely no difference other than the fact that you did not create the cache page. If you are comfortable logging your own caches and if you are comfortable relieving a CO of their responsibilities for that cache, then there's really no debating the matter. You are playing your own game by your own rules at that point.

 

Disagree - there's one other factor, mentioned many times before: many (if not most) throwdowns get thrown down when the real cache is actually there. That makes it "playing your OUR game by YOUR own rules."

 

I can deal with someone replacing a damaged or broken container, but not arbitrarily replacing a missing one without an explicit "OK".

 

I've replaced - with permission - a broken container. The difference was that I actually FOUND THE CACHE. If you replace a container, with or without permission, you are logging your own cache. I will never replace a missing cache...never have. The reason? Because I want the smilie, but I want to earn it.

Share this post


Link to post

Quoting some comments I like about throwdowns:

 

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. -JGrouchy

 

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. -me

 

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!" -JGrouchy

 

"Can I help you with maintenance by replacing the container?" "Yes, please! The original was a 450 mL Lock & Lock, wrapped in cammo duct tape, with a Write in the Rain full-sized note pad. If you'd replace that for me, I'd be grateful -TriciaG

 

We were out caching and found one in a series that seemed to be in the open and not in the style of the other hides. Got home to log the find and read the "found" log before ours - it was a cut and paste of a day's caching - "Found many caches today and replaced some containers that we couldn't find". Now our find doesn't seem legit. We found "a" cache, but maybe not "the" cache we were looking for. Totally annoying. End rant. -TGE

 

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. -on4bam [oops...typo...fixed 5 to 4]

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Quoting some comments I like about throwdowns:

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. -JGrouchy

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. -me

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!" -JGrouchy

"Can I help you with maintenance by replacing the container?" "Yes, please! The original was a 450 mL Lock & Lock, wrapped in cammo duct tape, with a Write in the Rain full-sized note pad. If you'd replace that for me, I'd be grateful -TriciaG

We were out caching and found one in a series that seemed to be in the open and not in the style of the other hides. Got home to log the find and read the "found" log before ours - it was a cut and paste of a day's caching - "Found many caches today and replaced some containers that we couldn't find". Now our find doesn't seem legit. We found "a" cache, but maybe not "the" cache we were looking for. Totally annoying. End rant. -TGE

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. -on5bam

 

The bolded is one of my favorites. It not only offers up a great correlation, but also hits my funny bone every time i read it! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. -on5bam

 

You mean on4bam I guess :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. -on5bam

 

You mean on4bam I guess :ph34r:

 

You've been upgraded!

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache.

Actually, I think logging a throwdown is somewhat worse than finding your own cache. At least you can, in fact, physically find your own cache. You can't find a cache that isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache.

Actually, I think logging a throwdown is somewhat worse than finding your own cache. At least you can, in fact, physically find your own cache. You can't find a cache that isn't there.

 

Umm...you can if you left a throwdown, which was my point...and the point of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Most, if not all would never think about putting a throwndown if they weren't "awarded" a smiley. -on5bam

 

You mean on4bam I guess :ph34r:

 

You've been upgraded!

 

You got a kid who's into Geocaching? Mazel Tov!

Share this post


Link to post

It's simple: leaving a throwdown and logging it as "found" IS EQUAL TO logging a "find" on your own cache.

Actually, I think logging a throwdown is somewhat worse than finding your own cache. At least you can, in fact, physically find your own cache. You can't find a cache that isn't there.

 

A CO might throw down a new cache and being unable to find their own cache, only to find out later that someone had moved the original to a "better hiding spot", and yes, I have seen some CO's trying to justify to themselves that it was a find.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2017 at 6:59 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

...  throwdowns get thrown down when the real cache is actually there...

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but rather than start another new one, I'll just tack on to this one.  I have a couple of experiences with "throwdowns" that I just want to share to illustrate why (I feel) they shouldn't happen, and why the CO needs to be the one to do the maintenance!

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

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

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

In both cases, if the CO him/herself had come to investigate there would have been no confusion, and only one container at GZ.

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

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, niraD said:

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

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

Been there, done that - almost ;) . After a few DNFs on one of my caches I wanted to check it out, but it turned out that this particular part of the woods looked completely different than what I had in mind (my last visit had been about 3 years ago). Also, the GPS reception in the dense forest was not the best. After 20 minutes or so I wanted to give up, when I had one last look at a spot which I didn't notice before, and there it was. Mother nature had turned a big solid stump into a small pile of rotten wood, overgrown by thorns.

But if I had placed a new container, I would have stated this clearly in a log. Throwdowns are a rarely a good idea, but what irks me are throwdowns which are not even mentioned by the cacher who placed them. Recently I found two film boxes at a cache site - one quite obviously the original one, the other also quite obviously a throwdown. Nothing whatsoever mentioned in the logs, and the first logger in the throwdown's logsheet - presumably the one who placed it - had just logged a "quick find".

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

... what irks me are throwdowns which are not even mentioned by the cacher who placed them. Recently I found two film boxes at a cache site - one quite obviously the original one, the other also quite obviously a throwdown. Nothing whatsoever mentioned in the logs, and the first logger in the throwdown's logsheet - presumably the one who placed it - had just logged a "quick find".

Almost identical to the situation we ran into in my #2 above ... 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but rather than start another new one, I'll just tack on to this one.  I have a couple of experiences with "throwdowns" that I just want to share to illustrate why (I feel) they shouldn't happen, and why the CO needs to be the one to do the maintenance!

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

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

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

i agree throwdowns shouldn't happen, but neither of those examples illustrate why I think so. #1 isn't even a throwdown 'cuz the person had permission to place it. #2 might be a throwdown, but you can't really tell. And in either case, it's more an amusing discovery that there are two containers at GZ, not some dire failure that hurts anything or matters.

But if you want to complain about the CO of #1 not doing his job, you know where to find him, and you even know who's executing his maintenance plan, so you can make sure to sort all those idiots out to make sure that never happens again. Or you can laugh and realize that stuff happens and no harm was done.

  • Upvote 1

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

×