Jump to content

Surely there has to come a point?


Recommended Posts

A CO flings out caches wherever they go - well outside any comfortable maintenance radius - usually in poor quality containers which will leak and in locations where a cache isn't likely to remain hidden and will soon go missing.

Evidence shows that CO almost never performs maintenance but instead threatens to archive caches and waits for someone to replace them just to claim a smiley, blaming other cachers for the state of the cache, or its absence, in the process.

Surely there must come a point at which TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements?

Vacation caches are actively discouraged or outright refused for all of these reasons but how is vacation cache specifically defined?

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Surely there must come a point at which TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements?

I can easily follow your story but not the final conclusion. Are you referring to existing guidelines or missing ones?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can easily follow your story but not the final conclusion. Are you referring to existing guidelines or missing ones?

Why are vacation caches not allowed?

Because the CO leaves them behind with no intention of maintaining them.

But there are plenty of caches which are placed closer to home with no intention of maintaining them.

The former is frequently refused.

The latter isn't.

The only difference between the two, that I can see, is distance.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

A CO flings out caches wherever they go - well outside any comfortable maintenance radius - usually in poor quality containers which will leak and in locations where a cache isn't likely to remain hidden and will soon go missing.

Evidence shows that CO almost never performs maintenance but instead threatens to archive caches and waits for someone to replace them just to claim a smiley, blaming other cachers for the state of the cache, or its absence, in the process.

Surely there must come a point at which TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements?

Vacation caches are actively discouraged or outright refused for all of these reasons but how is vacation cache specifically defined?

 

 

Quite a contradictory tale for sure.  On the one hand, the CO appears to hold the caches that they place in very small regard, as illustrated by the careless placement, and the choice of container.  On the other hand, they seem to be VERY attached to the placements, as illustrated by the inappropriate response to requests to maintain the caches that they so clearly love.  Sounds like the CO might have some other issues going on.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Why are vacation caches not allowed?

Vacation caches are usually allowed if you can convince that they can be maintained. This is the guideline.

You are referring to some "point". Can you pick any guideline which is definitely relating to this "point". It may help to understand your reasoning.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Vacation caches are usually allowed if you can convince that they can be maintained. This is the guideline.

You are referring to some "point". Can you pick any guideline which is definitely relating to this "point". It may help to understand your reasoning.

 

The point in time that TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

You've raised two different issues, vacation caches, and generally poor maintenance. The recent guideline update addresses maintenance more aggressively than in the past on both points. Here's the new language that speaks to your (question/rant?), "pull the plug":

Maintain geocache container

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Yep, so the question is - how many infractions of "timely manner" are required before the user will lose that right?

Part of me thinks that people complaining about cache quality for the CO are weighed less than constant, consistent archival by reviewer with little to know effort or communication by the CO.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

You've raised two different issues, vacation caches, and generally poor maintenance. The recent guideline update addresses maintenance more aggressively than in the past on both points. Here's the new language that speaks to your (question/rant?), "pull the plug":

Maintain geocache container

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

No - I haven't.

I'm comparing the two things for reasons which I thought were fairly obvious.

ETA - I find suggestion that my question / point constitutes a rant is a bit rude and uncessary. Maybe we could just discuss the point as raised without casting aspersions?

Edited by Team Microdot
Additional comment
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Surely there must come a point at which TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements?

Thanks to Isonzo for finding the relevant guidance.  I believe the basic question has been answered.  Is there a point that HQ will take action on a CO that is unwilling to take care of their caches.  I gather from the guidance in the link provided, that the answer is yes, they will.....eventually.  I presume that the follow up question would be, where is that "point"?  The answer probably depends on a number of factors, least of which might hinge on the response from the cache owner.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

The answer probably depends on a number of factors, least of which might hinge on the response from the cache owner.

Propably communication is the most important factor. I also guess that cache status is more important factor than owner's original or current intentions.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think I got your point from the OP and I got the analogy with the vacation caches. Perhaps all that's needed in this case is contacting GC HQ directly naming and shaming this individual, they will be able to see all the deleted logs etc and may decide on a temporary ban for him.  I'm pretty sure a ban is not in the power of the reviewers to issue, and it could be that they just haven't deemed the transgressions serious enough to escalate the HQ so far.

I'm pretty sure I can remember a UK CO having a temporary ban years and years ago, but can't recall the details.

 

Link to comment

Wherever that point is, it's pretty far off in the distance. There are some local cachers who have had 15+ caches archived by reviewers for non-maintenance, but new submissions from them are still published. I know of two that you can guarantee will not adequately respond to maintenance issues, yet they're still allowed to hide more caches. I did hear of one cacher a bit farther from me who actually did get banned about a year or so ago (I think it triggered a discussion here in the forums), but that's the only instance I've heard of. It really needs to happen more often.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
7 hours ago, captnemo said:
19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Evidence shows that CO almost never performs maintenance but instead threatens to archive caches

 

 

So let the CO archive them, doesn't sound like that they will be missed.

Threatens being the operative word i.e. looks like I'll have to archive this if people would rather complain about it being missing than replace it and get a smiley - then wait until someone places a throwdown, thereby saving the CO from any need to perform maintenance.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:25 AM, Team Microdot said:

A CO flings out caches wherever they go - well outside any comfortable maintenance radius - usually in poor quality containers which will leak and in locations where a cache isn't likely to remain hidden and will soon go missing.

Evidence shows that CO almost never performs maintenance but instead threatens to archive caches and waits for someone to replace them just to claim a smiley, blaming other cachers for the state of the cache, or its absence, in the process.

Surely there must come a point at which TPTB conclude that cache ownership isn't for this CO and pull the plug on further placements?

Vacation caches are actively discouraged or outright refused for all of these reasons but how is vacation cache specifically defined?

 

 

Sorry but what is TPTB?    Before we get started I want to state for the record that I agree with the premise of your post.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Sorry but what is TPTB?    Before we get started I want to state for the record that I agree with the premise of your post.

"The Powers That Be".  In other words, Groundspeak and it's reviewers.

I'd rather see a few vacation caches slip through the cracks than allow a CO that continues to place caches in their local area but doesn't maintain them.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, colleda said:

The Powers That Be

Thanks.   That being clarified I have to agree that being a CO isn't for everyone.  Question is how do you handle the bad ones?   I think GS is actively trying to do just that.  Problem is you can't be everywhere and everything to everybody.    GS still relies on the caching community to fill in the gaps.   If this CO is as bad as you say than all it should take is a little nudge to send them over the archival cliff.    Have you any info on why this is being allowed to continue?   Has anyone done anything about it?    

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If this CO is as bad as you say than all it should take is a little nudge to send them over the archival cliff.

Archival isn't the issue. In many places, the archival process is now well-established and it shouldn't be difficult to get unmaintained caches archived. The problem we're seeing is that the COs of these unmaintained caches are then allowed to hide more caches, even though they've already demonstrated that they're unwilling or unable to maintain those caches.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Thanks.   That being clarified I have to agree that being a CO isn't for everyone.  Question is how do you handle the bad ones?   I think GS is actively trying to do just that.  Problem is you can't be everywhere and everything to everybody.    GS still relies on the caching community to fill in the gaps.   If this CO is as bad as you say than all it should take is a little nudge to send them over the archival cliff.    Have you any info on why this is being allowed to continue?   Has anyone done anything about it?    

For the purposes of the thread and the question it raises, I'm putting to one side my extensive personal experience of this phenomena for a couple of reasons.

The main reason is that I see and am confused by a massive inconsistency in the way Groundpeak treats ongoing cache placements which, according to very strong evidence, will never be maintained by the person placing them and, if history is anything to go by, will never be maintained at all - and I'd like to understand why this is so.

A CO can place thousands of caches which will never be maintained, leave them to rot, criticise anyone who mentions their condition in their logs, blame other cachers when they go missing when in truth their disappearance is more to do with the fact they've been poorly hidden in the first place, threaten archival unless someone maintains or replaces them / unless people stop mentioning the condition in their logs - but not actually archive them and instead sit back until someone else does some sort of maintenance... usually another poorly hidden inadequate container...

A CO wanting to place a single vacation cache which will never be maintained is refused point-blank.

We've already heard from a reviewer who views these two scenarios as completely different things - a view I disagree with because the only difference that I can see between these two scenarios, at least in terms of permission for the placement, is distance - unless there's some other criteria that TPTB apply to this decision making process that they aren't sharing with us?

I have to agree with NYPaddleCacher who would rather see a few vacation caches slip through the cracks than allow a CO that continues to place caches in their local area but doesn't maintain them because - as far as I can see - any negative impact(s) arising from those vacation caches pales into insignificance against the national fire-and-forget placements that are allowed to accumulate unhindered.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I have to agree with NYPaddleCacher who would rather see a few vacation caches slip through the cracks than allow a CO that continues to place caches in their local area but doesn't maintain them because - as far as I can see - any negative impact(s) arising from those vacation caches pales into insignificance against the national fire-and-forget placements that are allowed to accumulate unhindered.

To elaborate on that, I'd be surprised if vacations cache are not better maintained by the community, which consists of a steady stream of non-local geocachers, than dozens of caches in an area which have other local cachers, as well as the CO, that can maintain them.  In many cases, the vacation cache is the only opportunity for a cache to be found in the area and most that attempt them most likely are never going to get the opportunity to find it again.  I suspect that many that perform community maintenance know this and are adding a slip of paper or even replacing a missing container knowing that they're giving future seekers an opportunity to find a cache in the area.  I know of a vacation cache in the Caribbean that was placed in 2001, has over 1000 finds, and in all that time has only had 1 NM log and was found earlier this week.  

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

To elaborate on that, I'd be surprised if vacations cache are not better maintained by the community, which consists of a steady stream of non-local geocachers,

Dropdowns are not maintenance.

OTOH CO can always ask visiting cachers in advance to arrange maintenance. I brought a container and log to a cache in Greenland after the CO asked if someone could do maintenance.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
15 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Archival isn't the issue. In many places, the archival process is now well-established and it shouldn't be difficult to get unmaintained caches archived. The problem we're seeing is that the COs of these unmaintained caches are then allowed to hide more caches, even though they've already demonstrated that they're unwilling or unable to maintain those caches.

This type of cache owner is defiantly an issue although I can't see how or why GS would allow it to continue.  Maybe the health score is just the beginning.   We may eventually see a cache owner score.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This type of cache owner is defiantly an issue although I can't see how or why GS would allow it to continue.  Maybe the health score is just the beginning.   We may eventually see a cache owner score.

I just wish I could find the old thread where I described such a mechanism and, if memory serves, how it might work ^_^

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

A CO can place thousands of caches which will never be maintained, leave them to rot, criticise anyone who mentions their condition in their logs, blame other cachers when they go missing when in truth their disappearance is more to do with the fact they've been poorly hidden in the first place, threaten archival unless someone maintains or replaces them / unless people stop mentioning the condition in their logs - but not actually archive them and instead sit back until someone else does some sort of maintenance... usually another poorly hidden inadequate container...

A CO wanting to place a single vacation cache which will never be maintained is refused point-blank.

While I agree with your point, I also agree with the reviewer who sees these as two separate things.

With the vacation cache (placed by a CO with no maintenance plan in place), there's no realistic expectation of maintenance by the CO.  With a regular cache placed within a certain distance from their home coordinates, there's a realistic expectation that maintenance can be performed by the CO.  That obviously does not mean that maintenance will be performed, only that it's more realistic that it can be performed.

The problem then becomes the point of your original post.  How/why does this keep happening and what can be done about it?  Unless TPTB take an actively aggressive stance in this area, there's really not much that can be done.  People can consistently file NM and NA logs to get those unmaintained caches off the books, but it's my guess the CO will just put more caches out in that case.  Without an outright banning of cache placement, there's very little that can be done, which is certainly frustrating.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 With a regular cache placed within a certain distance from their home coordinates, there's a realistic expectation that maintenance can be performed by the CO.  That obviously does not mean that maintenance will be performed, only that it's more realistic that it can be performed.

From the OP:

On 29/01/2018 at 1:25 PM, Team Microdot said:

A CO flings out caches wherever they go - well outside any comfortable maintenance radius - usually in poor quality containers which will leak and in locations where a cache isn't likely to remain hidden and will soon go missing.

Well outside a comfortable maintenance radius.

Add on the growing body of evidence of repeated cache abandonment / cacher abuse and it quickly becomes very clear that expectations of maintenance are no longer realistic and that at the very least any further cache placements of this nature should be subject to the exact same instant refusal as vacation caches.

 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Limitations on cache placement radius and number of caches per CO are two things that spring to mind.

Although I'd be OK with an outright ban too.

I still don't see how that addresses the issue of NO cache maintenance, as it appears the cacher doesn't do any maintenance, regardless of how close a cache might be to their home or how many they might have.  The caches they're allowed to place would still not be maintained.  The only solution appears to be a ban, but are they willing to make that a reality for some of the most prolific hiders out there?

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

From the OP:

Well outside a comfortable maintenance radius.

Add on the growing body of evidence of repeated cache abandonment / cacher abuse and it quickly becomes very clear that expectations of maintenance are no longer realistic and that at the very least any further cache placements of this nature should be subject to the exact same instant refusal as vacation caches.

 

I'm referencing caches inside a comfortable maintenance radius that aren't being maintained, while you reference caches outside the radius.  There's a difference there.  If those inside the supposed "comfortable" area aren't being maintained, then banning seems to be the only possible solution that would address CO's who place caches without any plans to maintain.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I still don't see how that addresses the issue of NO cache maintenance, as it appears the cacher doesn't do any maintenance, regardless of how close a cache might be to their home or how many they might have.  The caches they're allowed to place would still not be maintained.  The only solution appears to be a ban, but are they willing to make that a reality for some of the most prolific hiders out there?

Probably because it doesn't address the issue of NO cache maintenance on existing caches - it just goes towards preventing more of them being placed

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
58 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

From the OP:

Well outside a comfortable maintenance radius.

Add on the growing body of evidence of repeated cache abandonment / cacher abuse and it quickly becomes very clear that expectations of maintenance are no longer realistic and that at the very least any further cache placements of this nature should be subject to the exact same instant refusal as vacation caches.

 

I'm referencing caches inside a comfortable maintenance radius that aren't being maintained, while you reference caches outside the radius.  There's a difference there.  If those inside the supposed "comfortable" area aren't being maintained, then banning seems to be the only possible solution that would address CO's who place caches without any plans to maintain.

I'm not usually one to worry too much about staying on topic but I think in this particular case it's fairly essential to the whole discussion if it is to be of any use at all.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm not usually one to worry too much about staying on topic but I think in this particular case it's fairly essential to the whole discussion if it is to be of any use at all.

It is on topic because if a CO's caches inside a supposed "comfortable" area aren't being maintained, then why would we assume that caches outside the area are going to receive any more maintenance?  The habit of non-maintenance, regardless of the cache distance has been established.  The obvious lack of maintenance, regardless of distance, should ideally preclude the CO from placing any caches.  That seems to be a no-brainer to me.

Let's say that the CO has a GREAT reputation of maintaining caches within a reasonable distance of their home coordinates.  However, the maintenance for caches placed outside that area isn't as good.  How does that get rectified when limitations on caches and distance from home (as a possible repercussion) are put in place and this cacher no longer is able to place any hides farther away?  Is that CO going to be so upset that all those well-maintained caches get archived because they disagree with the limitations?  What if they get banned from any new placements?  That would apply to caches inside the area the CO is able to maintain regularly as well.  Is that fair?

I realize this is all hypothetical, but if we're going to address those COs who have no intention of maintaining caches, we also have to look at those who do maintain, but want to place caches outside their normal range of activity, but either maintain sporadically or rely on help from others to do so (outside a regular maintenance plan that might include a local cacher maintaining the hide).

I'm not against the issue raised in the OP.  It certainly does need to be addressed, but unless TPTB aggressively address this issue, then this will continue, regardless of what we might want to happen.

Edited by coachstahly
punctuation
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It is on topic because if a CO's caches inside a supposed "comfortable" area aren't being maintained, then why would we assume that caches outside the area are going to receive any more maintenance?  The habit of non-maintenance, regardless of the cache distance has been established.  The obvious lack of maintenance, regardless of distance, should ideally preclude the CO from placing any caches.  That seems to be a no-brainer to me.

Let's say that the CO has a GREAT reputation of maintaining caches within a reasonable distance of their home coordinates.  However, the maintenance for caches placed outside that area isn't as good.  How does that get rectified when limitations on caches and distance from home (as a possible repercussion) are put in place and this cacher no longer is able to place any hides farther away?  Is that CO going to be so upset that all those well-maintained caches get archived because they disagree with the limitations?  What if they get banned from any new placements?  That would apply to caches inside the area the CO is able to maintain regularly as well.  Is that fair?

I realize this is all hypothetical, but if we're going to address those COs who have no intention of maintaining caches, we also have to look at those who do maintain, but want to place caches outside their normal range of activity, but either maintain sporadically or rely on help from others to do so (outside a regular maintenance plan that might include a local cacher maintaining the hide).

I'm not against the issue raised in the OP.  It certainly does need to be addressed, but unless TPTB aggressively address this issue, then this will continue, regardless of what we might want to happen.

I was careful to define the topic quite specifically in the hope that a meaningful and contextual discussion could take place.

I'd pefer that the thread continued as such rather than losing all context and, as a result, descending into unrelated / non-specific hypothesis and bickering with no useful discoveries or outcome.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I was careful to define the topic quite specifically in the hope that a meaningful and contextual discussion could take place.

I'd pefer that the thread continued as such rather than losing all context and, as a result, descending into unrelated / non-specific hypothesis and bickering with no useful discoveries or outcome.

You really think Groundspeak will use this thread to create a useful outcome or cachers will come up with some unknown useful discovery, heretofore not in play, that will alleviate this problem being raised?  Good luck with that.

Log your NMs and NAs in order to get the desired result you're looking for because that's what is available to us and it doesn't rely on TPTB to get involved.  They've shown no focused attempt to ban or limit the types of caches or types of COs that you've targeted and until they do, this situation will continue as it currently stands, regardless of whatever discourse might occur on this thread.

There are only two conceivable solutions.  One revolves around Groundspeak getting actively involved.  The other involves cachers getting actively involved.  I don't see either solution being actively pursued on a large scale.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You really think Groundspeak will use this thread to create a useful outcome or cachers will come up with some unknown useful discovery, heretofore not in play, that will alleviate this problem being raised?  Good luck with that.

I've seen any number of changes made which were previously discussed here on these forums - whether by design, coincidence or pure accident - at least where the discussion managed to remain focused for long enough to reach some identifiable conclusions or concensus.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I've seen any number of changes made which were previously discussed here on these forums - whether by design, coincidence or pure accident - at least where the discussion managed to remain focused for long enough to reach some identifiable conclusions or concensus.

There are only two conceivable solutions.  One revolves around Groundspeak getting actively involved, which you're advocating for (and I agree, by the way).  The other involves cachers getting actively involved.  However, I don't see either solution being actively pursued on a large scale.

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

but if we're going to address those COs who have no intention of maintaining caches, we also have to look at those who do maintain, but want to place caches outside their normal range of activity

I think Groundspeak should start small and consider those COs who do maintain and want to places caches inside their normal range of activity,  but can't.

Edit: I see that you have addressed "inside their normal range of activity" and I agree, something needs to be done in general within all ranges.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

There are only two conceivable solutions.  One revolves around Groundspeak getting actively involved, which you're advocating for (and I agree, by the way).  The other involves cachers getting actively involved.  However, I don't see either solution being actively pursued on a large scale.

I agree.

The second solution is barely making a dent in many areas. So if Groundspeak doesn't do something about prolific COs who do not maintain and continue to hide caches, (beyond getting reviewers to sweep up their mess), then the message that's sent is it's OK to abandon your caches. Most COs will do so -- human nature to take the easiest route if most don't object. Eventually, (and in some areas currently) the game appeals to those who geocache for smileys and are content to seek litter and leave litter.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This type of cache owner is defiantly an issue although I can't see how or why GS would allow it to continue.  Maybe the health score is just the beginning.   We may eventually see a cache owner score.

Please please please Groundspeak if you are listening, implement a cache owner score and allow us to filter for COS. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Just noticed defiantly instead of definitely.  Not even spellcheck can save me. 

I noticed it too but, in a spot of good fortune, I concluded that defiantly was rather fitting in the context used ;)

I tend to agree that this type of cache owner is defiantly an issue.

This reminds me of the fitting typo when someone posted: "Power trails are poopular."

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I've seen any number of changes made which were previously discussed here on these forums - whether by design, coincidence or pure accident - at least where the discussion managed to remain focused for long enough to reach some identifiable conclusions or concensus.

There are only two conceivable solutions.  One revolves around Groundspeak getting actively involved, which you're advocating for (and I agree, by the way).  The other involves cachers getting actively involved.  However, I don't see either solution being actively pursued on a large scale.

Which is a bit sad.

I'm most sad for relative newcomers to the game who, on doing precisely what they should do - reporting a wet or missing cache - end of on the receiving end of scathing remarks from the CO who belittles them for complaining and for not simply replacing the cache and claiming the smiley.

For me, this is the sort of bad apple that spoils the barrel. It makes me wonder how many newbies are frightened off by the abuse.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm most sad for relative newcomers to the game who, on doing precisely what they should do - reporting a wet or missing cache - end of on the receiving end of scathing remarks from the CO who belittles them for complaining and for not simply replacing the cache and claiming the smiley.

For me, this is the sort of bad apple that spoils the barrel. It makes me wonder how many newbies are frightened off by the abuse.

Then call them out publicly.  If they're going to shame and belittle a newbie (or established cacher), then they should be called out and be shamed and belittled on their actions.  There's no place for this in something that's supposed to be fun and a pastime.  No one should have to be subject to this and think it's an accepted norm in geocaching.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Then call them out publicly.  If they're going to shame and belittle a newbie (or established cacher), then they should be called out and be shamed and belittled on their actions.  There's no place for this in something that's supposed to be fun and a pastime.  No one should have to be subject to this and think it's an accepted norm in geocaching.

I find it has to come from an authority figure, especially if the culture in the area is predominantly smiley-oriented community-maintenance-is-OK. I really appreciated when a reviewer stepped in and left a public message when a cache owner got very angry in his archival log a few minutes after  I logged an NA.

Edited by L0ne.R
Reconstructed the last sentence
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I find it has to come from an authority figure...

The problem is that the more people believe that is has to come from an authority figure, the more it will come from an authority figure whether it has to or not. And authority figures are always happen to oblige.

It's sad to follow this thread and find it arriving at a consensus that GS should step in with yet another rating and yet another prohibition. I'm sorry you guys have such terrible problems where you cache, but I wish you'd leave alone the rest of us that don't see anything like this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...