yet another "should this be approved ?"

September 29, 2003

Can't we all just get along? Oh yeah, that was a different riot. Take a deep deep breath, relax, and just go caching.

Lets have fun out there, we are.

September 29, 2003

Let me apologize if I have offended anyone. I really did not mean any level of disrespect. I greatly admire the administrators and volunteers that have made geocaching.com into such a wonderful entity.

My words were intended to contribute to an ongoing discussion, not to be disparage the work that goes on here.

Cin

September 29, 2003

Mrs (?) W, I'd be happy to talk with anybody in public, or private, any time. Feel free.

I guess I'm curious why it's not ok to try to discuss differences in approach/opinion in detail in the forums. Isn't that one of the things they're there for ?

I'd call a real discussion on something some folks think is a problem is more valuable than a 19-page thread with 923 posts entitled East-side Cachers, but I'm not from the east side so maybe I got that one backwards.

And I've done customer support for 20 years, so I know what it looks like when it's done right, as well as when it's done wrong.

Lastly, suggesting volunteers (or paid employees) are getting it wrong once in a while and trying to explain why you feel that way doesn't mean you don't value their contribution.

September 29, 2003

Bye, bye!

[This message was edited by Wienerdog on September 29, 2003 at 11:34 PM.]

September 29, 2003

Discussion to reach understanding would be great but this topic seems to be two very polarized viewpoints. The more posts, the more strongly the battlelines which have lead to actions that impact others. I for one had a few caches removed from my to do list. Does anybody want to discuss a way to compromise to a win-win for all of us without placing fault or blame? I have offered a couple of ideas but got zero in the way of nibbles???

September 29, 2003

All this sounds strangely familiar. A year ago the same themes, some different players: the guidelines are a mess; decisions seem arbitrary; communications are down; people are (pick any that apply) confused, concerned, hopeful, pissed off, grateful. Cache approvals may not be the biggest fire in this fast-growing sport but they have a profound effect on how people perceive it. I sure hope we can achieve some degree of clarity and consistency before another year goes by. As key changes are proposed or drafted, it might be a good idea to post review drafts for comment and have someone respond to questions.

September 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
All this sounds strangely familiar. A year ago the same themes, some different players: the guidelines are a mess; decisions seem arbitrary; communications are down; people are (pick any that apply) confused, concerned, hopeful, pissed off, grateful. Cache approvals may not be the biggest fire in this fast-growing sport but they have a profound effect on how people perceive it. I sure hope we can achieve some degree of clarity and consistency before another year goes by. As key changes are proposed or drafted, it might be a good idea to post review drafts for comment and have someone respond to questions.

Someone just needs to put an online poll of users to determine the number of days/weeks/months that is the dividing line between temporary and finite...then that data gets passed on as a suggestion when they are drafting the guidelines. Maybe 2 months is finite enough, 4 weeks isn't...who knows. But getting a handle on everyone's comfort range may solve the problem.

M.

September 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mattyhayes:
Someone just needs to put an online poll of users to determine the number of days/weeks/months that is the dividing line between temporary and finite...

I doubt it is economical or practical to expect a referendum every time a rule is made, though perhaps rules should come more from wide-scale membership grumbling, and be based in the spirit of the concern, not by a strict interpretation of the wording of a rule.

Despite this being a social sport, and despite the encouragement to form a community around it, and despite the obvious decentralization of the mechanics of the sport, we're not involved in the control of the sport, as far as this particular site goes.

We keep hearing talk of the "honor system", but when you introduce rules, and enforce them with an enforcing body, you cease to have an honor system and instead have a rules system. I think the question of whether an honor system or a rule system is what we want. You can't have both, just as you can't have both a truly open, decentralized sport, and a centrally defined set of rules for the sport enforced by a single set of enforcers.

Frankly, to me, the comments of the most recent cache finders are much more useful and meaningful in determining cache quality and caveats, than whether or not it passed through the passive, unverified filtering that is the cache approval process. I'm certainly ignorant of the reasons behind having cache approvers, and of having rules on types of caches.

Or, for that matter, why it is that we can have a flag on the cache page for size of cache, and a flag on the cache page for type of cache, and a flag on the travel bug page to distinguish a few certain people's special bugs, but can't have a flag on the cache page to distinguish temporary caches from "permanent" ones -- instead of, say, a hard and fast zero tolerance rule.

September 30, 2003

I am in total agreement with George501949... Can't we all just get along? Geocaching is is a very young and rapidly evolving game/sport and as such my preference would be to apply a combination of guidelines and common sense regarding cache placements. The folks who work as approvers are in a thankless position and probably never get any E-mail saying *Thanks for approving my cache* but if the request is denied then oh boy, stand by for some punishment!

So now we come back to placement guidelines. It is my opinion that the Geocaching community consensus AND common sense decide what is approved or not approved. Geocaching is far to young and moving to fast to be locked into a set of hard rules unless we are talking about placing a cache in the Stacy Street BNSF switch yard. In the meantime I think it would be nice if we could cut the approvers a little slack while the guidelines/rules are evolving... how long did it take the game of golf to establish it's rules?

Hey... this is my first forum post... can I count it as a point?

Mr Wienerdog

[This message was edited by Wienerdog on September 30, 2003 at 02:17 AM.]

1.8k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Hey... this is my first forum post... can I count it as a point?

Mr Wienerdog

Mr. Wienerdog you rock and if you want a point i'll double it!

I certainly have my own opinion on this subject but to play it safe I shall and will keep my opinion to my self.

God forbid I make somebody unhappy.

Pepper

Horizontals where it's at!

1.8k · September 30, 2003

OFF TOPIC I KNOW BUT THIS STRUCK A NERVE!!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by vds:
I guess I'm curious why it's not ok to try to discuss differences in approach/opinion in detail in the forums. Isn't that one of the things they're there for ?

I'd call a real discussion on something some folks think is a problem is more valuable than a 19-page thread with 923 posts entitled East-side Cachers, but I'm not from the east side so maybe I got that one backwards.

quote:
Isn't that one of the things they're there for ?

Exactly my point this is what the fourms are for.

vds I have never meet or talked with you and I'm sure you a nice person I say this because you seem to be a respected cacher in your area.

I'm wondering why you feel the Eastside cachers forum is not a valid thread. If you've read the thread you would know that we on the eastside and surrounding areas discuss area caches, ask questions related to the sport and support the game/sport in our area. It is a positive place to hang out and share our stories, recommed caches, ect...!

Maybe you should try starting a thread for your area and see what kind of respone you get before you start knocking it.

Pepper

Horizontals where it's at!

September 30, 2003

When I read the Eastside Forum I come away content rather than perplexed! That is the fun we seek!

5.9k · September 30, 2003

I don’t see this as polarized into two camps at all. I can see VDSs position while at the same time not agreeing with him for the way he has chosen to handle it. I have tremendous respect for his geocaching skills but don’t think throwing in the towel is the best way to handle it. We’ve traded a few emails, and despite my position being against his, (that’s happened more than on just this particular issue) he was friendly and non-combative.

I think it all boils down to the intent of the cache hider. If you intend for the cache to be temporary, it will not be approved. To try to pin it down to weeks or months would be futile. For example, say I want to hide a Halloween cache that will last for the entire month of October, thank to the squealers, the limit was set at six weeks. OK, I’ll just plunk down my cache for six weeks and maintain it for four. Sometime in the spring, when it warms up and dries out, I’ll go retrieve it.

I understand your issue with all this VDS, you are trying to say the guidelines permit the placement of temp caches, because none are permanent. Hey, I’m probably the closest to preferring cache anarchy than anybody here, but I have to respect the wishes of the approvers, even when I disagree with them. For me the “not permanent” guideline means I can’t weld my ammo box to a bridge abutment.

Believe it or not, I’m saying “can’t we all get along” too, I’m just trying to find an acceptable solution instead of simply pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

1.4k · September 30, 2003

The admins and TPTB have been reading this thread and are engaged in a discussion about what is considered temporary. I'm hopeful that we will have an agreement on that in the next few days.

As far as the rules vs. guidelines discussion let me throw in my two cents worth. We have guidelines that we ask all cachers to follow. When reviewing a chace we check to make sure the cache meets those guidelines. If it doesn't then we will question why. Sometimes the reason is compelling enough to approve the cache, sometimes it isn't. If everyone follows the guidelines then we don't have to add more rules.

Clarifying the guidelines and the rules is a priority and we value your input. Please feel free to continue this thread if you have constructive comments for TPTB and the admins. Personal attacks do not have a place here, if you can't say something nice don't say any thing at all.

TMJ

September 30, 2003

Thank you for updating us. I'm glad to hear that you're all talking about this -- I know it means quite a bit of time and effort on your part!

Cin

5.9k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Personal attacks do not have a place here, if you can't say something nice don't say any thing at all.

Is that a rule too?!

(I didn't notice any attacks, did I miss something?)

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
(I didn't notice any attacks, did I miss something?)

Yes, you did. Actually, they were probably edited before you read them.

I've received two pretty nasty email messages to my personal account as well, one from an anonymous sender claiming to be an approver (a claim I don't happen to believe).

That's okay. I think that most of us have been civil and productive. I still love geocaching, and that's not going to change.

Cin

5.9k · September 30, 2003

Ouch!

Somewhere way back in one of my long winded responses, I made the point, "we're all friends here" meaning, unlike in the General section, we all either know or will run into one another somewhere along a trail. A deep dark trail with no witnesses.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

2.6k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
A deep dark trail with no witnesses.

Yes, where I will be waiting to discuss semantics with my 9mm. HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

POWDER!!!!!!

5.9k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
A deep dark trail with no witnesses.

_Yes, where I will be waiting to discuss semantics with my 9mm._ _HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!_

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/rough/comeandgetsome.gif

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=39197http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39197_3600.jpg

_POWDER!!!!!!_

Yeah, I've wanted to have that discussion with you for some time. I may have to make mention of your grammar and spelling as well.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

2.6k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
Yeah, I've wanted to have that discussion with you for some time. I may have to make mention of your grammar and spelling as well.

Einstein couldn't spell. So I'm not offended in any way.

You had better bring some of that Tangeray or what ever it was you were drinking.

POWDER!!!!!!

5.9k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
Yeah, I've wanted to have that discussion with you for some time. I may have to make mention of your grammar and spelling as well.

Einstein couldn't spell. So I'm not offended in any way.

You had better bring some of that Tangeray or what ever it was you were drinking.

I think you just insulted Einstein...

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

2.6k · September 30, 2003

The going theory about Einstein, is that he was autistic.

Hmm. Super genius or idiot savant?

POWDER!!!!!!

Honored to providing inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CachinCin:

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
(I didn't notice any attacks, did I miss something?)

Yes, you did. Actually, they were probably edited before you read them.

I've received two pretty nasty email messages to my personal account as well, one from an anonymous sender claiming to be an approver (a claim I don't happen to believe).

That's okay. I think that most of us have been civil and productive. I still love geocaching, and that's not going to change.

Cin

Criminal and any others who may be confused:

Cin is right, you did miss something. I decided to deleted the content of my posts.

My intention originally was to point out how, in my opinion, this thread had gotten way out of line. It was blunt, short and to the point.

I was upset seeing people I have known and liked behaving in a way that I perceived as dysfunctional.

After posting my opinions last night I sat down away from all of this and the thought struck me that by just participating in this thread I was becoming just as dysfunctional as the people I was asking to stop. I had been pulled in by MY OWN choice to participate.

Yes Cin did get an email from me, not under disguise like the other she recieved. Yes, I wanted to make my point clear without stirring up a hornets nest again on the thread. Nasty? Well.... I don't see it that way. I just don't hide my opinons under how wonderful I can write and spell. It is not my forte. I just come out and tell it like it is.

The other post was written by MR WD. His first very first post! That's how troublesome this has become. He doesn't post on the forums.

Sorry to those that I confused.

I'm out of here.

Donna (WD)

2.6k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Wienerdog:
the thought struck me that by just participating in this thread I was becoming just as dysfunctional as the people I was asking to stop.

I usually am very offended by the "can't we all just get along?" comments, or the "go back to the general forums" attitude.

In it self it's rude and dismissive of the issues and feelings being expressed.

I'm glad your epiphany brought this to light for you.

Telling everyone to behave and get along is not constructive participation.

POWDER!!!!!!

Honored to providing inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

I usually am very offended by the "can't we all just get along?" comments, or the "go back to the general forums" attitude.

I understand where you're coming from, I think. But we can discuss various matters, even disagree about fundamental issues, and still be mature and polite while doing so.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

5.9k · September 30, 2003

quote:
I just don't hide my opinons under how wonderful I can write and spell.

Hey, was that a shot?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

2.6k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
we can discuss various matters, even disagree about fundamental issues, and still be mature and polite while doing so.

Mature and polite are very subjective. Your sense of mature and polite will not be the same as mine.(I grew up in the navy and on the east coast)

In fact taking offense to something someone else has posted is your fault.

If your truly mature and polite, you will not publicly ridicule others for their sense of mature and polite. There are other ways of toning down a passionate discussion without using passive/aggressive flaming. Like "can't we all just get along?"

I'm not a PC kind of guy. Like I said above, it's your fault if you are offended by what I say. Which is a sign of your own weakness of character.

Your sense of politeness is up to you. Don't force your expectations and morals on others.

Disclaimer: all the yous are generalized.

POWDER!!!!!!

Honored to provide inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by SuperGenius:
OFF TOPIC I KNOW BUT THIS STRUCK A NERVE!!!!!

quote:
I'd call a real discussion on something some folks think is a problem is more valuable than a 19-page thread with 923 posts entitled East-side Cachers, but I'm not from the east side so maybe I got that one backwards.

quote:
Isn't that one of the things they're there for ?

Exactly my point this is what the fourms are for.

vds I have never meet or talked with you and I'm sure you a nice person I say this because you seem to be a respected cacher in your area.

I'm wondering why you feel the Eastside cachers forum is not a valid thread.

Oh geez no, I'm not trying to imply that.

The point I was trying (apparently poorly) to make was that although we have threads with hundreds of short postings, some people were seemingly upset at this one for having a few long postings.

That said, I'd like to see more considered opinion type threads with what people think the state of the sport is, and what might be the right thing to suggest to make it better as more of an open discussion.

But I'm certainly not implying that any other the other uses of the forums aren't equally ok.

If the authors+readers think they're cool, and they're non-offensive etc., they're certainly cool.

October 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

_If your truly mature and polite, you will not publicly ridicule others for their sense of mature and polite._ There are other ways of toning down a passionate discussion without using passive/aggressive flaming. Like "can't we all just get along?"

I'm not a PC kind of guy. Like I said above, it's your fault if you are offended by what I say. Which is a sign of your own weakness of character.

Your sense of politeness is up to you. Don't force your expectations and morals on others.

_Disclaimer: all the yous are generalized._

Well, you certainly are trying to live up to your forum title, but I don't feel like a fish today...

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

2.6k · October 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
Well, you certainly are trying to live up to your forum title, but I don't feel like a fish today...

Passive/agressive waah waah.

That's ok though, I'm not inciting anything.

Just making a logical point.

POWDER!!!!!!

Honored to provide inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

October 2, 2003

I understand why temporary caches are generally not permitted, but why are moving caches not permitted? The cache would be permenent in that it doesn't need to be recreated, the only thing temporary would be it's location. Since location can be updated by the cache owner, this would not cause overhead for the admins...

October 2, 2003

posted October 02, 2003 02:48 PM

I understand why temporary caches are generally not permitted, but why are moving caches not permitted? The cache would be permenent in that it doesn't need to be recreated, the only thing temporary would be it's location. Since location can be updated by the cache owner, this would not cause overhead for the admins...

October 2, 2003

Sorry about the double posts. It appears that I cannot delete a post. So this is a request to one of the moderators to delete my duplicate post and this post.

Thanks

October 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by kd7edh:
I understand why temporary caches are generally not permitted, but why are moving caches not permitted? The cache would be permenent in that it doesn't need to be recreated, the only thing temporary would be it's location. Since location can be updated by the cache owner, this would not cause overhead for the admins...

The primary concern is that there's no control over where the cache gets moved to. It could end up in an area that's off-limits, such as near a railroad or in a national park.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

24.7k · October 2, 2003

You know whats really pathetic? This is one of the few interesting threads in the entire forums. Whoops I used more than 8 words to say that.

October 2, 2003

Okay, I read and reread the "http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx". I see where not to place caches, but where can I place caches? How can you tell if a certain area is owened by the National Parks? Is BLM area okay for caches? Mapquest just labels areas as "Urban", "Recreational", and "Other". What part of "Recreational" is okay to place caches on? Is national forest area okay?

October 2, 2003

WOW, is all i can say!

October 2, 2003

Blah blah blah. Too much talking, not enough caching. Now I remember why I don't go to any more planning group meetings. There's too much planning, and not enough doing! It's a game y'all!

Real cachers don't smell like Fleecy.

October 2, 2003

Ditto TennisKid and Ditto cacherunner. It's time to put the ball back in play and get on with the game!

Mr Wienerdog

2.7k · October 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Wienerdog:
Ditto TennisKid and Ditto cacherunner. It's time to put the ball back in play and get on with the game!

Mr Wienerdog

I've stayed out of this mess and agree with the others...time to close this one down. Let's get back to the game and remember it's just a game and have fun!!!

October 2, 2003

quote:
I've stayed out of this mess and agree with the others...time to close this one down. Let's get back to the game and remember it's just a game and have fun!!!

Key thing there John, IT"S A game made to have FUN!

October 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

The primary concern is that there's no control over where the cache gets moved to. It could end up in an area that's off-limits, such as near a railroad or in a national park.

Ron/yumitori

Big wow.

I dont see anybody going out and verifying where every multi ends up. I've been to a bunch that probably wouldnt have been approved had they been a traditional cache.

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

7.4k · October 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

Big wow.

I dont see anybody going out and verifying where every multi ends up. I've been to a bunch that probably wouldnt have been approved had they been a traditional cache.

And chances are that they are old (read: grandfathered) caches. Admins are now asked to verify the locations in a multicache.

It *is* a "big wow." If a cache gets placed in an off-limits area, it can cause real headaches for the web site and seriously damage the image of geocaching with the land manager.

October 4, 2003

I look at it this way:

1. Is there guidance allowing *temporary* caches: Yup!

2. Is there guidance prohibiting the approval of *temporary* caches: Yup again!!

3. Does everyone involved believe that they are correct: Definitely!

4. Do we all need better guiidelines: Oh, yeah!

5. Is this discourse preventing us from getting out and playing: Yup.

6. Should we all try to avoid taking this personally: Yeah, baby!

7. Is this worth quitting Geocaching over: NO!

8. Ain't ya glad we live in a country where we can get caught up in a lively debate over hiding a microcapsule, and not have to worry about governmental controls and intrusions.

9. Thanks to all the admins - if we don't police ourselves, someone else will try to do it for us.

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

And chances are that they are old (read: grandfathered) caches. Admins are now asked to verify the locations in a multicache.

How old is grandfathered?

Even so, IF a cache is found to violate guidelines that existed before whatever "grandfathered time" represents when they are found by admins such as yourself, why is there no cache should be archived log? For example there is a bible puzzle one in Cle Elum that you had to not only cross a RR, but was within 30-40' from the tracks. I havent checked to see if it still exists but I know you have found it.

Can you speak to this type of situation? The only reason I termed it "big wow" was I have seen this type of stuff and seen it Slide.

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

2.6k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:
How old is grandfathered?

Even so, IF a cache is found to violate guidelines that existed before whatever "grandfathered time" represents when they are found by admins such as yourself, why is there no cache should be archived log? For example there is a bible puzzle one in Cle Elum that you had to not only cross a RR, but was within 30-40' from the tracks. I haven't checked to see if it still exists but I know you have found it.

Can you speak to this type of situation? The only reason I termed it "big wow" was I have seen this type of stuff and seen it Slide.

I don't think any should be Grandfathered.

Anyhow this CleElum cache was archived for safety. I did take note that the approvers that did find it didn't mention the railroad tracks ten feet away.

It shouldn't have lasted for over a year. Should we have an anonymous report this cache button on cache pages?

POWDER!!!!!!

Honored to provide inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

7.4k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

How old is grandfathered?

It depends on the guideline. Many of the guidelines were tightened around the January-February timeframe of this year.

quote:
Even so, IF a cache is found to violate guidelines that existed before whatever "grandfathered time" represents when they are found by admins such as yourself, why is there no cache should be archived log

If I find a cache that has been accepted that I think is problematic, I report it to Groundspeak. They then act on it as they see fit.

October 5, 2003

quote:
If I find a cache that has been accepted that I think is problematic, I report it to Groundspeak. They then act on it as they see fit.

So, the questions are:

1.Did you think this cache was problematic?

and

2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, did you report it ic Groundspeak?

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth,

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings..."

7.4k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ajetpilot:
So, the questions are:

1.Did you think this cache was problematic?

and

2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, did you report it ic Groundspeak?

I'm editing my response so that my answers on this are clear:

1. Yep.

2. As far as I can remember, yes. I communicate about issues I find with caches on a daily basis with Groundspeak.

Now, my question for you is what exactly were your motives in asking these questions in the manner that you did?

[This message was edited by Moun10Bike on October 05, 2003 at 10:22 PM.]

yet another "should this be approved ?"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment