Jump to content

Since when do we allow moving caches?


res2100

Recommended Posts

This topic seems to have faded into the background somewhat, but it is still very much an issue.

 

I have grave concerns for the future of this game, where gc.com, which is seen as a pivotal point, sees fit to impose rules. I accept that some baseline approval may be in order, but all responsibility for a cache should be assigned to its owner.

 

This IS a problem, and it needs to be addressed NOW. I'm sure this topic has been noticed by the powers that be, yet it has fallen on deaf ears.

 

If the site's responsibility ends at being a listing service and it's disclaimers are correctly worded, then where a cache is or may be placed is of little concern to the system admins. And that's what gc.com is, a system. Cover your bums from the outset with a good disclaimer, and the content of pages provided by users is not an issue.

 

Besides, I'm sure there are loads of caches approved that go against these "guidelines". Those that really are a problem are rectified by community feedback.

 

I hope the admins review this, or at least respond as a matter of urgency.

 

Yours in looking forward,

Rog / Mind Socket

Link to comment

The only thing that concerns me is that rules are made before both sides of the argument can be made and heard. Actually, another thing is when some people make a request or post that angers some people, so they verbally abuse them for making an opinion or call them whiners or b*tchers. Just respect their opinion and let it be. I know this is just a forum, but many issues can be discussed and determined here. It is here for recreation AND debate.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

 

"If we don't succeed we run the risk of failure."

- Dan Quayle

Link to comment

As a victim of the infamous Electric Shavers Mr. Mayhem Micro Madness series I still don't find anything wrong with moving caches.

 

It not only stays within the guidelines and terms of agreement of geocaching.com but poses an entirely new and challenging twist on the sport.

 

Yes, it can be agrivating if you aren't the first to find it, but no more agrivating when you can't find the regular cache or miss that travel bug. As long as the moving caches do NOT become a car-cache, where all you have to do is park and pick it up, then I find absolutely nothing wrong with this style of cache.

 

Now, I know that Jeremy has said his peace and has updates the site to reflect such, and I know that it is impossible to please 100% of the people 1% of the time, but with more and more restrictions it's getting to please less and less of that percent for less and less amount of time.

 

Not to send this thread back into the flames, but when will the sport return to the cachers and out of the red-tape?

 

Draegon, Mentor of the OKIC

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

 

"To conquer without risk is to succeed without glory"

Link to comment

Actually, I've never tried to hide my own moving caches, Shavers has placed enough in the area.

 

I just felt I should respond here instead of rehashing the same things on one of the multitudes of threads concerning this same issue.

 

Draegon, Mentor of the OKIC

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

 

"To conquer without risk is to succeed without glory"

Link to comment

I guess my question as a realitively new cacher is this: "Is there any true governing body over the sport of GeoCaching?" I know that GeoCaching.com is the primary site for the sport and also is the home of the sport, but surely there are other options (I know of a couple that in respect to the site I will not list), that might allow the listing of caches that GeoCaching.com has banned as acceptable.

 

My point I guess is that if GeoCaching.com has banned travelling caches and you don't like it try listing with one of the other GeoCaching sites, or even create your own website for Travelling caches.

 

If you want to have your cache accepted on GeoCaching.com you have to go by their rules.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Draegon:

As a victim of the infamous Electric Shavers Mr. Mayhem Micro Madness series I still don't find anything wrong with moving caches.

 

It not only stays within the guidelines and terms of agreement of geocaching.com but poses an entirely new and challenging twist on the sport.

 

Yes, it can be agrivating if you aren't the first to find it, but no more agrivating when you can't find the regular cache or miss that travel bug. As long as the moving caches do NOT become a car-cache, where all you have to do is park and pick it up, then I find absolutely nothing wrong with this style of cache.

 

Now, I know that Jeremy has said his peace and has updates the site to reflect such, and I know that it is impossible to please 100% of the people 1% of the time, but with more and more restrictions it's getting to please less and less of that percent for less and less amount of time.

 

Not to send this thread back into the flames, but when will the sport return to the cachers and out of the red-tape?

 

Draegon, Mentor of the OKIC

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

 

"To conquer without risk is to succeed without glory"


 

---------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me Sir, but there is a Wild GeoCache in this area.

 

www.neurocache.com - NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

Link to comment

I'm with Canadazuk on this one. In caching, as in all things in life, you can't have it all your way, all the time. So what if someonelse was able to place a moving cache?! So what if your cache idea isn't approved? Is it dissaponting? Yes. Is the world going to come to an end because of it? No.

 

Its just a game, people - no matter how much you come to love it. Without no rancour, or any intent to start a flame war here - what about drying your eyes, blowing your nose, and getting over it?

 

Anyone for a new acronym? "SUC - Shut up & cache"

Link to comment

> Anyone for a new acronym? "SUC - Shut up & cache"

 

Sounds good, but the guidelines don't allow me to do that in the manner that I want. icon_frown.gif

 

I'm not going to get over it, because I'm not convinced that there is one good reason to ban moveables. We aren't children, and can make decisions and take responsibility for ourselves.

 

I don't fear the end of world, I fear for the future of innovation in geocaching.

- Rog / Mind Socket

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mind Socket:

> Anyone for a new acronym? "SUC - Shut up & cache"

 

Sounds good, but the guidelines don't allow me to do that in the manner that I want. icon_frown.gif

 

I'm not going to get over it, because I'm not convinced that there is one good reason to ban moveables. We aren't children, and can make decisions and take responsibility for ourselves.


 

That is why I bumped this thread originally.

 

I'm not a troll here to cause trouble, I'm not here to flame Jeremy and bash geocaching.com, I've even taken the side of the admin here against some area cachers.

 

My problem is thus: In the terms of agreement is says that any one cacher is responsible for what happens while on the hunt. If they get arrested, it isn't gc.com's fault, if they get hurt or die, god forbid, it isn't gc.com's fault. Any cacher with over 5 finds also knows because of this that some caches get removed by John Q. Public or park ranger/land manager so that they aren't able to be found.

 

So why is it that caches that are supposed to be moved aren't allowed when the admin will allow caches with no proof of authorization from the parks?

 

Every style of cache has its challenges, the fact that you have to be quick is the challenge for most moving caches.

 

I don't want to search for geo-trash, but I think the rules and regulations here are starting to get overabundant.

 

Draegon, Mentor of the OKIC

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

 

"To conquer without risk is to succeed without glory"

Link to comment

No moving caches. My original post was not about the irresponsibility of placing moving caches without approval from local land managers(which is definitely an issue). It's the issue of placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere.

 

We have addressed this to death. If you don't like it, create your own moving caches web site and get folks to be irresponsible there. Some topics are not decided by committee.

 

If this comes up again, feel free to point anyone to this post. I doubt I'll address it again.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

Sounds like a good response to me. People fail to see that it's your site and your rules. If you say no to moving caches then it seems simple enough to me that either A) they shut up, or :( the go elsewhere.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

No moving caches. My original post was not about the irresponsibility of placing moving caches without approval from local land managers(which is definitely an issue). It's the issue of placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere.

 

We have addressed this to death. If you don't like it, create your own moving caches web site and get folks to be irresponsible there. Some topics are not decided by committee.

 

If this comes up again, feel free to point anyone to this post. I doubt I'll address it again.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

---------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me Sir, but there is a Wild GeoCache in this area.

 

www.neurocache.com - NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

Link to comment

That's a shame. "Placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere" doesn't have to be an issue. Is there any evidence that badly placed, yet approved, regular caches are less prevalent than well placed moveables that have since been banned? There have been no problems in NSW, Australia, where at least 6 moveables have been providing something different for a while.

 

It takes a certain type of person to be irresponsible, not a certain type of cache.

 

Ok, ok, I'll shut up. I know it's your site and your rules, I just hope it's well understood how this attitude looks to some people. I'll take this as a final, not-so-subtle hint that I need to call what I do something other than geocaching, as the name doesn't mean what it used to, to me. I know the old argument, gc != gc.com, but you can't separate the two anymore, and gc.com has implicitly assumed a responsibility.

 

Yours in looking forward,

Roger / Mind Socket

Link to comment

Well Jeremy, I have to admit that I had not considered the 'one time cache' aspect of a moving cache, in which I do agree wholeheartedly with the guidelines of gc.com.

 

And as I said before I was not trying to criticize or even beat a dead horse, I was just trying to understand why, because the reasoning I had heard didn't sound, well, reasonable.

 

And hey, I love what you've done with the place icon_wink.gif.

 

Draegon, Mentor of the OKIC

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

 

"To conquer without risk is to succeed without glory"

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...