POLL on archived virtual

2.3k · September 11, 2003

Please review the following link for a cache I submitted:

I submitted this virtual cache, and it was turned down. I have written to the approver twice, and have waited a week, getting no response at all. Keeping in mind that I drive the route from Phoenix to Reno and back two or three times a year, that there is nothing "local" for about 50 miles in all directions from this spot, and given the lack of caches in this area and along this route and the fact that this is a historic point of interest, should this virtual have been approved?

9.4k · September 11, 2003

Sorry, we can't view your unapproved caches. Try pasting the text here.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.6k · September 11, 2003

Can a physcial cache be placed in the spot or nearby?

CR

7.4k · September 11, 2003

I'm not the approver who rejected this submission, but I would have done the same. Keep in mind this passage from the guidelines:

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

From the look of things, there are LOTS of areas in which to hide a traditional or micro here.

Another problem with this cache: an Internet search quickly reveals that the verification information for which you are asking is "Discovered in 1863." A verification question should only be possible to answer if you have actually visited the spot.

2.3k · September 11, 2003

An Altoids could probably be placed on the back of the sign somewhere, but that's about it. The rest of the land is as flat as you can see.

Of course, the same could be said about:

Goldfield

also along the same route.

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
I'm not the approver who rejected this submission, but I would have done the same. Keep in mind this passage from the guidelines:

_Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate._

From the look of things, there are LOTS of areas in which to hide a traditional or micro here.

Another problem with this cache: an Internet search quickly reveals that the verification information for which you are asking is "Discovered in 1863." A verification question should only be possible to answer if you have actually visited the spot.

http://geocachingwa.org

Well, that's AWFUL close, but that's not EXACTLY what it says on the sign.

7.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:

Well, that's AWFUL close, but that's not EXACTLY what it says on the sign.

My apologies: "Discovered 1863" (no "in").

2.3k · September 11, 2003

Alright, I changed the Q&A on the cache a bit, so it can't be researched on the net.

The cache page:

Stopped here on the way from Reno to Phoenix, which can be a looong drive in a day! Due to the lack of caches available on this stretch of road, we thought we would give you the opportunity to get a quick find. To claim credit for this EASY virtual, all you have to do is email me the name of the person under the wiped-out portion of the sign below. Before you drive off, take a minute and think about living way out there in the mid-1800's, without a/c or electricity. Drive safe!

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on September 11, 2003 at 01:51 PM.]

2.3k · September 11, 2003

Reading the other thread about the archived virt has made me think that next time I pass through, I will just slap a magnetic micro up there to appease TPTB. One more piece of junk that will eventually end up in the desert.

Perhaps a different Geocaching section for Virtual and Locationless caches would be in order?

7.2k · September 11, 2003

Is this sign really that unique?

1.6k · September 11, 2003

Harold G. Hendersen?

CR

September 11, 2003

We have alot of virtuals like this down here. They are all real exciting. Nothing like a plaque in the middle of nowhere about nothing to get me going.

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Is this sign really that unique?

http://www.phantoms-lair.com/markers/images/mark_155.jpg

I suppose that question could be put to every single historic sign that is already a virtual. I have to admit, I like to seek out historical places and things better than go out and find a box of junk. Just last week I went on a virtual about a train, I had passed within 3 or 4 blocks of this train every time I went to Vegas, but never knew it was there. Now I will make it a point to stop and take a look at this train more often, especially when I have company with me. I think virtuals like this sign should be allowed, and that they can coexist with traditional caches. I like the thrill of wondering what's inside the cache, just like a kid ripping into a Crackerjax box to see which "prize" you get. By listing the sign as a virtual cache, maybe someone driving past will stop for nothing more than to get a quick find and an extra smiley face on their page. But in the meantime, they might actually READ the sign and learn something. Isn't there a unique value in THAT? Isn't that the REAL prize of a virtual cache? The State of Nevada thought that the lives lived there and the events which took place at that spot were worth the sign. Should we not take a minute to step back in time and imagine what it was like? How many of us just drive on by and never know about that spot on the side of the road? Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what it says? Does slapping a magnetic micro on the backside of the sign just to get the cache page approved make it any more important? I mean, if I HAVE to go put a Hide-a-key on there, I will. In fact, I might just go buy them in bulk. There should be no argument about approval then, right? 100 Hide-a-key containers, from Phoenix to Reno. Geocaching or Geotrashing?

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Harold G. Hendersen?

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

Mtn-man: Now why did you go and do that?

Tell me. Do you like ruining cache ideas?

Nice guy.

1.6k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Harold G. Hendersen?

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

Now why did you go and do that?

Tell me. Do you like ruining cache ideas?

Just to show that your data wasn't secure. I found your verification in about 3 minutes.

Don't you want for people to not cheat on your cache at least?

CR

2.3k · September 11, 2003

From a virtual of mtn-man's:

None of my caches are really easy, and this one is no exception.

No Internet finds for you on this cache!

1. Go to the listed coordinates. There you will find a plaque. Tell me the last two words on the plaque. One is an abbreviation.

2. Next, look to the left of the plaque as you read it. About three feet to the left, someone has pounded two initials into the concrete base. Tell me what the initials are. (A little irony here, as you will see.)

3. Finally go to the other side of the concrete base directly across from the plaque. There you will see a rectangular metal access plate. How many screws/bolts hold it in place?

COME ON. How many screws hold it in place? You gotta be kidding me.

2.3k · September 11, 2003

I give up on this idea. Not worth the effort.

From this website:

Are there any variations in the game?

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

Uh huh.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on September 11, 2003 at 02:56 PM.]

5.2k · September 11, 2003

From searching the net, it looks like there are still some buildings there. Are they accessible? Can you plant a cache among them? Surely there must be someplace nearby to plant a cache, and you could make the sign part of a multi.

Lil Devil

38.2k · September 11, 2003

It's not that hard to create a cache that meets the guidelines. Yesterday I placed a "real" cache that started on National Park Service land. It was the site of a Revolutionary War era fort. A year ago I would have made it a virtual and it probably would have been accepted. Because it is NPS land, it may well have been accepted as a virtual today.

But I decided that, though my point was to bring people to this historic site, I could easily incorporate a real cache, so I used an interesting object in the park (a 18th century cannon), took some numbers off it and used them to provide the coordinates to the real cache, which was outside NPS boundries.

My point is that it's almost impossible NOT to find a way to incorporate a real cache.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

7.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
From a virtual of mtn-man's:

None of my caches are really easy, and this one is no exception.

No Internet finds for you on this cache!

1. Go to the listed coordinates. There you will find a plaque. Tell me the last two words on the plaque. One is an abbreviation.

2. Next, look to the left of the plaque as you read it. About three feet to the left, someone has pounded two initials into the concrete base. Tell me what the initials are. (A little irony here, as you will see.)

3. Finally go to the other side of the concrete base directly across from the plaque. There you will see a rectangular metal access plate. How many screws/bolts hold it in place?

COME ON. How many screws hold it in place? You gotta be kidding me.

Well, answer the question then!

38.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

True, but the website also wanted to get back to its roots, which was listing caches and getting away from being another version of www.waypoint.org. You've been around this website and these forums long enough to know this, so I don't understand your gripe.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

7.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Harold G. Hendersen?

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

Mtn-man: Now why did you go and do that?

Tell me. Do you like ruining cache ideas?

Nice guy.

Seems you are a bit confused here I guess.

7.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
I give up on this idea. Not worth the effort.

From this website:

Are there any variations in the game?

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

Uh huh.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on September 11, 2003 at 02:56 PM.]

NEW ideas... NEW ideas. Virtual caches for road side signs is old and has been overdone. If you can come up with some *new* ideas I'm sure they would be looked at.

2.3k · September 11, 2003

I quoted the wrong person, SO WHAT? I tried to fix it, but this site is too dadgum restrictive, I couldn't delete it, so we have to live with the mistake. Sorry.

Yes, I AM a bit confused-they want the game to evolve, but they want the game to get back to its roots. Now THAT'S confusing. In any event, I am letting go of this Silver Peak virtual cache idea.

Still, you know what pisses me off? Not a word from the approver. I waited a friggin week after I wrote back, too. NADA.

September 11, 2003

quote:
By listing the sign as a virtual cache, maybe someone driving past will stop for nothing more than to get a quick find and an extra smiley face on their page. But in the meantime, they might actually READ the sign and learn something. Isn't there a unique value in THAT? Isn't that the REAL prize of a virtual cache?

In my case: no. When I'm on a cache hunt the only thing I'm focused on is the cache. If it's a virtual (which I rarely do), I just look for the info I need and move on.

And just so you know my bias, I've never been able to figure out the charm of virtuals. They usually seem like tests to me...

Ode to a Pigeon: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Lookin' at Me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME?! (b. katt, 7/14/03)

September 11, 2003

"Virtuals" are old and overdone?

These roadside signs are part of our history, and some of us find them fascinating to read and/or visit.

On a day of rememberance that is an ironic statement.

1.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Still, you know what pisses me off? Not a word from the approver. I waited a friggin week after I wrote back, too. NADA.

I've been quite busy with work this week and I didn't really want to get into a pissing contest with you like you got into here with everyone else. In your emails all you did was go on about how you pass through the area and can maintain it, even though you live far away. Ok, thats great, but you didn't address the question of "why not a physical." And even after reading this thread you still haven't. What about those building Lil Devil mentions in his post? Why not use all the roadside plaques within a hundred miles and do a multi?

It's obvious to me after reading this thread and others that geocachers want physical caches. If you want to draw people to a sign, perhaps you should try waypoint.org or GeoHunt.

Hemlock - The alternative to purple frownies.

1.4k · September 11, 2003

These roadside signs are part of our history, and some of us find them fascinating to read and/or visit.

Yep, I guess I'm just weird, but I like reading them also. It's a shame that we have to visit multiple web sites to enjoy all aspects of geocaching. I would think that GC.com, as a commercial entity (Groundspeak.com), would not want to lose any traffic to sites such as N*******e.com or any of the other listed sites.

It's obvious to me after reading this thread

Well.... it was obvious to me after reading some other threads that the majority of people didn't have a problem with small penknives in caches, but according to your profile you are attempting to protect everyone from themselves and state that knives are the worst problem that approvers have with caches, when most of the other approvers state that it's virtual caches.

Anyways, I just felt the need to comment... and as always, YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.3k · September 11, 2003

Looks lame to me.

I wouldn't stop for it, but if there was a physical cache nearby I'd try it.

I hope you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you've heard is not what I meant. --Richard Nixon

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Still, you know what pisses me off? Not a word from the approver. I waited a friggin week after I wrote back, too. NADA.

I've been quite busy with work this week and I didn't really want to get into a pissing contest with you like you got into here with everyone else. In your emails all you did was go on about how you pass through the area and can maintain it, even though you live far away. Ok, thats great, but you didn't address the question of "why not a physical." And even after reading this thread you still haven't. What about those building Lil Devil mentions in his post? Why not use all the roadside plaques within a hundred miles and do a multi?

It's obvious to me after reading this thread and others that _geocachers_ want physical caches. If you want to draw people to a sign, perhaps you should try http://www.waypoint.org/ or http://www.geohunt.com/.

Hemlock - The alternative to purple frownies. http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ws/emoticons/frog.gif

Amazing. Not a word from you for a week, and NOW you have time to jump in and reply. Well, I am BUSY, too. In fact, everyone in this world is BUSY. You are not the only one. I wrote to you TWICE and you NEVER wrote me back. If you are too busy, then please inform geocaching.com that they need to get another approver in there to take over. The question "Why not a physical?" can be applied to just about EVERY virtual in the database here. Moot point anyhow, I am not pushing for approval on this cache anymore. According to you, no one wants to read the boring old roadsigns and plaques. I can only hope that one day someone thinks the same of your tombstone.

www.waypoint.org & geohunt, huh? Thanks for the advice.

Are you reading this, Geocaching.com? Your approver is recommending the competition.

Unbelievable.

By the way, funny how whenever someone stands up for something they are labeled as being in a "pissing match", huh?

Believe me, you will know when I get into a "pissing match" with you...

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on September 11, 2003 at 04:26 PM.]

September 11, 2003

Woha, maybe some of the cachers from New Mexico (rocksnrivers)and Zonie land have been out in the sun too long. Or is it just that cranky people want to place verts?

So you want to place caches in the middle of Nevada? That wouldn't be a vacation cache would it? This last summer we drove up central Nevada on Hwy 93 and had to limit our cache stops to one per hour, otherwise we would still be driving. None of them were verts by the way.

Dang, if you can't find a rock to hide a cache under in Nevada, maybe you shouldn't be driving across central Nevada.

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

September 11, 2003

I'm with you all the way Team 360!

7.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:

Are you reading this, Geocaching.com? Your approver is recommending the competition.

No, not really. There are caches, and there are points of interest. The two sites that Hemlock listed focus on the latter two, while this site focuses on the former.

These arguments seem to center around opinions as to whether or not Geocaching.com should try to be a "master of all trades" and fully incorporate both. The site owners, however, have spoken up and said that they want the focus to be caches, with virtuals only in those places where a traditional cannot be placed or is not appropriate.

A solution that might work for everyone is to have virtuals in their own category similar to benchmarks. Since such a solution has not yet been implemented, however, can we not simply agree to follow the guidelines that the site owners have asked that we follow? Judging by the reponses to the poll above, most people seem to support those guidelines.

1.4k · September 11, 2003

Are you reading this, Geocaching.com? Your approver is recommending the competition.

That strikes me as odd also. I can understand a user suggesting someone go somewhere else, but not someone that has been blessed by TPTB. As I stated earlier, I would think that Groundspeak.com would want all the traffic that they can get.

You can always log caches such as this at N*v*c*c*h*e.com I love geocaching and I really enjoy geocaching.com but I can't help but feel that gc.com is losing potential customers by being 'superior' to other sites by attempting be the 'PC, Morally Superior' geocaching site.

Yes, it's true that I am no longer a paying member. As I stated earlier, I truly enjoy gc.com but feel as if gc.com may not be truly interested in all forms of geocaching and is attempting to alienate those of us that have different and more conservative views than those of TPTB. Anyways, that's just my $0.02, YMMV.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.4k · September 11, 2003

Judging by the reponses to the poll above, most people seem to support those guidelines.

These forums are by no means representative of the entire geocaching community. To state such is ridiculous. Many of us enjoy posting/debating here, but we are the exception to the rule and not the norm.

Once again, those that post in the forums are a very small minority of the overall geocaching community, not the majority.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

September 11, 2003

Double post

[This message was edited by TahoeJoe on September 11, 2003 at 05:10 PM.]

September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Still, you know what pisses me off? Not a word from the approver. I waited a friggin week after I wrote back, too. NADA.

I live at Lake Tahoe and had a virtual cache turned down by the same approver. That didn't bother me too much but what did bother me was that I wrote back to him to explain why I thought it should be a virtual and he never wrote back to me (three weeks ago). I don't think you should be an approver if you can't take the time to answer your e-mails. I'm a middle school teacher with 180 students and if a parent leaves me a message I make sure I find the time to call back in a timely manner. I was very annoyed when I took the time to explain my reasons and he choose to ignore me. By the way Team 360, that sounded like a great cache, Northern Nevada is very rich in historic places I never knew about. I wish people would get off their anti virtual high horse and realize that both types of caches can coexist together.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

1.5k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
_Judging by the reponses to the poll above, most people seem to support those guidelines._

These forums are by no means representative of the entire geocaching community. To state such is ridiculous. Many of us enjoy posting/debating here, but we are the exception to the rule and not the norm.

Once again, those that post in the forums are a very small minority of the overall geocaching community, not the majority.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Just like voting in elections (or lack thereof), lack of participation in matters that pertain to the future of the sport is the fault of those who choose not to participate in such things.

These polls are about as unscientific as leaving cheese in the fridge for too long, and growing 17 different colored molds on it. While they may reflect the opinions of those who choose to particpate, they are by no means concrete at conclusion.

As with in-person conversation/discussion/debate, in order to make a point that is accepted by others, tempers must be kept in check. Otherwise, it becomes a pissing contest to see who can go further and even less than nothing is accomplished, except perhaps some dissent and resentment for one another when the smoke clears.

Brian

Team A.I.

September 11, 2003

Double post

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

1.4k · September 11, 2003

Just like voting in elections (or lack thereof), lack of participation in matters that pertain to the future of the sport is the fault of those who choose not to participate in such things.

That is a true statement. However, not all have thick enough skin for participating in semi-anonymous forums such as these where the discussion, as in this thread, becomes somewhat heated. If gc.com is relying on these forums as an indication of what geocachers, as a whole, want then they are (most likely) not receiving accurate information.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.4k · September 11, 2003

I don't think you should be an approver if you can't take the time to answer your e-mails.

Yeah, that is pretty lame I am lucky in that the approvers that cover my area are kind enough to respond to emails. We may not always agree, but at least they will respond, thanks Mtn-Man & Erik for having always responded to any correspondence I have sent your way

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

7.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

These forums are by no means representative of the entire geocaching community. To state such is ridiculous.

I agree that the forums are not representative of the entire community, BUT those that frequent here tend to be those most involved in the game and with a larger vested interest in it than the casual participant. After seeing poll after poll and thread after thread on this topic, each one arriving at the same conclusions, I am not as quick to dismiss the results as you.

1.4k · September 11, 2003

I agree that the forums are not representative of the entire community, BUT those that frequent here tend to be those most involved in the game and with a larger vested interest in it than the casual participant. After seeing poll after poll and thread after thread on this topic, each one arriving at the same conclusions, I am not so quick to dismiss the results as you.

So.... you think the same 15 to 50 people that can be considered 'forum regulars' should represent the geocaching community as a whole?

I really like you Moun10Bike, but can't agree with you on this matter. Forum regulars do NOT represent the community as a whole. Is gc.com only going to cater to the 15 to 50 people that regularally post here? If so, they are really limiting their revenue possibilities.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

7.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

So.... you think the same 15 to 50 people that can be considered 'forum regulars' should represent the geocaching community as a whole?

That would appear to be an unsubstantiated claim. Exactly what evidence to you have to support that the majority of geocachers want virtual caches that do not follow the guidelines?

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
I wish people would get off their anti virtual high horse and realize that both types of caches can coexist together.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

Exactly.

1.4k · September 11, 2003

Exactly what evedence to you have to support that the majority of geocachers want virtual caches that do not follow the guidelines?

Exactly what evidence, other than forum regulars, do you have that supports that geocachers, as a whole, totally approve of the guidelines?

It's a rhetorical question. You are relying on the 15 to 50 forum regulars and I am relying on the evidence I receive in private emails about virtuals and by the items I see left in caches i.e. lighters, knives, etc.

GC.com may post 'guidelines' to help defray certain liabilities, but in the real world it seems as if at least 50% of the geocachers don't subscribe to the GC.com guidelines.

Let's face it, we may both be right and we may both be wrong. There's no scientific way for either of us to prove our point of view. However, I have admitted here in public that you may be right. How 'bout admitting that the same could be of the views that I hold Cheers!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.4k · September 11, 2003

I admit, that I'm not a business person. However, I'm no dummy either. I took my share of business classes in college. If I were a business owner of an e-site, I would want ALL the traffic. I imagine Groundspeak would love to have all the 'geo traffic', thus I just can't understand why they don't just create a separate section for virtuals. I realize that the changing of code and the possible revamping of how the site operates could take some time, but it seems to me that it would cut down on bickering and might just help the bottom line i.e. increased traffic, page views, etc (which makes advertisers happy )

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

3.9k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

These forums are by no means representative of the entire geocaching community. To state such is ridiculous.

I agree that the forums are not representative of the entire community, BUT those that frequent here tend to be those most involved in the game and with a larger vested interest in it than the casual participant. After seeing poll after poll and thread after thread on this topic, each one arriving at the same conclusions, I am not as quick to dismiss the results as you.

http://geocachingwa.org

I think I will have to agree with Jeff here. I don't believe that the people that post on these fourms are the most involved in Geocaching. Most are like me and you...they love a good debate and are not afraid to state their opinions.

I on the other hand trust the infastructure that Geocaching has put in place to make the right decision 95% of the time. So far every admin or approver I have dealt with has made logical and intelligent decisions.

I'm not saying they are perfect...but I think they most represent the Geocaching community as compared to the fourm users. They deal with people every day with those that use the fourms and those that never use the fourms. Therefore they have a more wide range view of all cachers.

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

1.5k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
_Just like voting in elections (or lack thereof), lack of participation in matters that pertain to the future of the sport is the fault of those who choose not to participate in such things._

That is a true statement. However, not all have thick enough skin for participating in semi-anonymous forums such as these where the discussion, as in this thread, becomes somewhat heated. If gc.com is relying on these forums as an indication of what geocachers, as a whole, want then they are (most likely) not receiving accurate information.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Their lack of 'thick skin' shouldn't be an excuse for them to ****/moan when something is changed that they do not like, when the opportunity may have been there to have a voice in the matter.

If cachers are afraid to speak up because they are intimidated by people with 650 posts, 2000 posts, 10,000 posts, it's unfortunate. I was involved in geocaching for well over a year before I delved into the forums. I started at one post, just as everyone else did and reached my number by exercising that choice to participate. Just as we will never get all cachers to voice in on issues pertaining to the sport itself, never will we truly see all cachers happy with EVERYTHING in the sport.

Brian

Team A.I.

7.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

Let's face it, we may both be right and we may both be wrong. There's no scientific way for either of us to prove our point of view. However, I have admitted here in public that you may be right. How 'bout admitting that the same could be of the views that I hold

Jeff, I am a big enough person to admit that, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't respect your views.

My reason for jumping into the fray on this matter comes from having been an admin for as long as I have been. I feel that that has given me some good insight into why the guidelines on virtuals were first put into place, and why they are a good thing. Or perhaps not.

POLL on archived virtual

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