Only You Can Prevent Lame Caches

[+KBI]

Oh crud, I thought Markwell was going to close the thread.

I'm not a mod in this forum - only the Getting Started.

You could make a recommendation, you know.

You're asking for the thread to be closed? Please tell me you're not one of those people.

[Clan Riffster]

How can caches that fit those qualifications be judged as lame just because you wouldn't enjoy them?

Judging from your description, I think I would enjoy it. It certainly wouldn't rate as "Lame". Just because a cache isn't perched on the top of a Sierra Mountain peak, doesn't mean it's not gonna be interesting.

 

People are going to hide what they are going to hide and will respond to any attempt to "educate" them with indignation. "Who are you to tell me what kind of cache I can hide?"

I prefer the phrase, "Who are you to tell me what kind of cache I could hide?" Far more constructive. Education Vs. Legislation.

 

When someone is telling me that my caches need to be changed because they're lame and lacking in quality, I suppose I have the right to characterize such pushy criticism as I see it.

You are free to feel that way if you wish. As you know, I'm not telling you that you need to change your cache. What I am telling you is that I believe soggy log film canisters dropped into the gunk behind a dumpster make for very lame caches. What you do with that information is up to you. I sure hope you don't stay awake at night looking for ways to please this ol' curmudgeon. Now if I were telling you that your soggy log dumpster dive film canister needed to be changed to satisfy my aesthetic, then I would accept your use of the term "pushy".

 

If it looks like a bully, and it walks like a bully, and it talks like a bully ...

Perhaps we disagree on what a bully is? Frankly, I don't see offering an opinion and suggesting a course of action as looking, walking or talking like a bully. If I were to call you out, targeting one of your caches specifically, proclaiming loudly, "KBI's ________ (<~~insert name) cache is a real stinker!", then I would agree that it was bullying. I haven't done that, nor do I ever intend to do that. Doing so would be rude.

 

No, you just want a large number of cache owners to substantially modify their hides in specific ways so as to be more pleasing to you.

Sigh... I feel like a broken record.

Maybe you missed this the last few times I posted it, so lemme try again. If it doesn't stick this time, I'll need to break out my thesaurus and find monosyllables to use. I'm not asking for anybody to modify anything. What I would ask for if I felt a Call to Arms was in order, would be for folks to apply a little thought to their next hide. I personally believe that the game would be improved by such a measure.

 

Eliminating ... completely altering ...what's the difference?

Very little. But since I'm not asking for either an elimination or an alteration, that particular question is pointless.

 

How in the heck do you know how much thought was applied the first time around?

I have my ways. Call it Secret Squirrel magic, or basic observation. It's not too hard to tell if you try.

 

Suppose this hider you're lecturing about his lack of inspiration agrees to "think about it," yet he then proceeds to produce whatever it is that bundles your boxers anyway. Would you be happy then? He did what you asked, right? You're not really interested in anyone changing their behavior just to please you, right?

Actually, yes. I would be tickled pink. Pleasing me is just a by-product, not a goal. Improving the overall quality of Geocaching is my goal.

 

One question I've asked you many times but you've never answered, Clan Riffster: How does the mere existence of caches you DON'T like spoil your enjoyment of those you DO like? Why can't BOTH types coexist?

I've never answered because the question does not apply to my stated opinions. As I've stated before, and will state again, it is my belief that lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game. I've explained why I feel that way more than once. If you found a cache that was a blatant guidelines violation, would you report it? I would, because I believe such caches are detrimental to the game. For me, the same is true for lame caches. In my opinion, they are hurting this game. I don't ask that you embrace this belief. Knowing that there is a real stinker of a cache nearby won't detract from my enjoyment while hunting something else, and history has shown us that stinkers and kewl caches can live side by side quite amicably. That's not particularly relevent to the issue we're debating.

 

We both feel that lame caches exist. If we were able to quantify our feelings regarding what is lame, the lists would most likely appear quite similar. As far as I can tell, our only disagreement revolves around what to do about them, if anything. You seem to feel that nothing needs to be done, because the mear existance of lame caches doesn't hurt anybody other than those folks who go out of their way to be offended. (I.e; knowing a cache is carpy, hunting it anyway, then whining about it) I feel differently, as I've stated numerous times throughout this discussion. While you might see this debate as chocolate & vanilla, I see it as chocolate & Anthrax.

 

Just my $0.02

[CoyoteRed]

Hmmm... Sounds like the two loudest voices in this thread agree on the major issue of the existence of lame caches, roughly what is a lame cache, and neither like lame caches.

 

However, from what I'm getting is one wants to discourage said lame caches and the other tacitly, or otherwise, approves of them. I'm curious why the latter wouldn't want to increase the general level of entertainment, or "un-lame-ness," of the hobby?

[+edscott]

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

 

Not to start another arguement.. but many of those "historical caches" should probably be archived for environmental impact reasons.

[+KBI]

People are going to hide what they are going to hide and will respond to any attempt to "educate" them with indignation. "Who are you to tell me what kind of cache I can hide?"

I prefer the phrase, "Who are you to tell me what kind of cache I could hide?" Far more constructive. Education Vs. Legislation.

As a cache owner, I resent anyone telling me my hide isn’t good enough. Doesn’t matter whether it’s through rulemaking or bullying.

 

Feel free to set good examples of inspired genius with your own hides, but as soon as you start criticizing the creativity of others’ hides, you become a boor.

 

When someone is telling me that my caches need to be changed because they're lame and lacking in quality, I suppose I have the right to characterize such pushy criticism as I see it.

I'm not telling you that you need to change your cache. What I am telling you is that I believe soggy log film canisters dropped into the gunk behind a dumpster make for very lame caches. What you do with that information is up to you. ... Now if I were telling you that your soggy log dumpster dive film canister needed to be changed to satisfy my aesthetic, then I would accept your use of the term "pushy".

You’re telling me (as a “lame cache” owner) that I need to think these things through a little more (your words) so I won’t produce such LAME caches, and that my creativity sucks. What’s the difference? Put yourself in my shoes. That sure SOUNDS pushy!

 

If it looks like a bully, and it walks like a bully, and it talks like a bully ...

Perhaps we disagree on what a bully is? Frankly, I don't see offering an opinion and suggesting a course of action as looking, walking or talking like a bully. If I were to call you out, targeting one of your caches specifically, proclaiming loudly, "KBI's ________ (<~~insert name) cache is a real stinker!", then I would agree that it was bullying. I haven't done that, nor do I ever intend to do that. Doing so would be rude.

And telling thousands of volunteer, amateur fellow participants system-wide that they totally suck at cache design ISN’T rude? Whether your whining is targeted at a specific hide or a whole class of hides isn’t the point.

 

No, you just want a large number of cache owners to substantially modify their hides in specific ways so as to be more pleasing to you.

Sigh... I feel like a broken record.

Maybe you missed this the last few times I posted it, so lemme try again. If it doesn't stick this time, I'll need to break out my thesaurus and find monosyllables to use. I'm not asking for anybody to modify anything. What I would ask for if I felt a Call to Arms was in order, would be for folks to apply a little thought to their next hide. I personally believe that the game would be improved by such a measure.

So ... you’re no longer asking for existing hides to be changed, you just want all future cache hiders to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing that doesn’t satisfy your personal aesthetic? Well, at least I’m making SOME progress.

 

Eliminating ... completely altering ...what's the difference?

Very little. But since I'm not asking for either an elimination or an alteration, that particular question is pointless.

Yes, you are. You just said above that you’re "asking" all future cache hiders to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing that doesn’t satisfy your personal aesthetic.

[+KBI]

How in the heck do you know how much thought was applied the first time around?

I have my ways. Call it Secret Squirrel magic, or basic observation. It's not too hard to tell if you try.

That sounds mighty presumptuous to me. “You don’t know it yet, Mr. Cache Owner, but you need to be told: Your cache is LAME! I can tell by the smell that you’re no good at hiding these things, and if you can’t do any better than that you’re a THREAT TO THE GAME!

 

Suppose this hider you're lecturing about his lack of inspiration agrees to "think about it," yet he then proceeds to produce whatever it is that bundles your boxers anyway. Would you be happy then? He did what you asked, right? You're not really interested in anyone changing their behavior just to please you, right?

Actually, yes. I would be tickled pink. Pleasing me is just a by-product, not a goal. Improving the overall quality of Geocaching is my goal.

So if ALL of them agreed to "think about it," and they ALL concluded that the only thing they needed to add was an invitation to you to take your opinions and go jump in the lake and leave them alone, you’d still be tickled pink?

 

One question I've asked you many times but you've never answered, Clan Riffster: How does the mere existence of caches you DON'T like spoil your enjoyment of those you DO like? Why can't BOTH types coexist?

I've never answered because the question does not apply to my stated opinions.

It does apply. It’s critical to our debate.

 

Each of us has the power to either avoid lame caches before we find them, or to emotionally recover from them afterward. There’s no need to let them spoil your fun, and there’s certainly no need for you or anyone else to go around telling others what they should and should not be hiding, what they should and should not be finding, or what they should and should not be enjoying. It’s nothing short of telling others to play the game your way, pure and simple. You can call it “only my humble opinion” all you like, but in my opinion it’s very bad manners – and the very opposite of “humble.”

 

You CAN avoid (or get over) caches you think are “lame,” which means that to complain about their very existence is purely an academic exercise. Your criticisms are therefore moot, and only serve to annoy those who happen to enjoy those types of hides. Such totally unnecessary whining is, in my opinion, best described as ... well, I think you know which L-word fits best.

 

If you found a cache that was a blatant guidelines violation, would you report it? I would, because I believe such caches are detrimental to the game. For me, the same is true for lame caches. In my opinion, they are hurting this game.

Apples and oranges. The guidelines are there for a variety of very good reasons. There are varying opinions on what constitutes “appropriate for children,” for example, but the website owners have a duty to draw the line somewhere AND to enforce that line. Things that are not family friendly are almost universally believed to be harmful to the game. I'm fairly sure we both agree there.

 

What you’re trying to do is draw a line of acceptability regarding creativity. Lack of creativity is NOT harmful. Your comparison suggests that a minimum creativity standard needs to be added to the guidelines – is that what you really want?

[+KBI]

As I've stated before, and will state again, it is my belief that lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game. I've explained why I feel that way more than once. If you found a cache that was a blatant guidelines violation, would you report it? I would, because I believe such caches are detrimental to the game. For me, the same is true for lame caches. In my opinion, they are hurting this game. I don't ask that you embrace this belief. Knowing that there is a real stinker of a cache nearby won't detract from my enjoyment while hunting something else, and history has shown us that stinkers and kewl caches can live side by side quite amicably. That's not particularly relevent to the issue we're debating.

 

We both feel that lame caches exist. If we were able to quantify our feelings regarding what is lame, the lists would most likely appear quite similar. As far as I can tell, our only disagreement revolves around what to do about them, if anything. You seem to feel that nothing needs to be done, because the mear existance of lame caches doesn't hurt anybody other than those folks who go out of their way to be offended. (I.e; knowing a cache is carpy, hunting it anyway, then whining about it) I feel differently, as I've stated numerous times throughout this discussion. While you might see this debate as chocolate & vanilla, I see it as chocolate & Anthrax.

You state quite clearly that it is your “belief that lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game.” You then go on for two long paragraphs NOT telling me how lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game. (The "blatant guidelines violation" thing being irrelevant as I described above.)

 

You tried to convince me of this once before, but all I got out of it was something about a crazy guy running at you with a knife. Put the blame on me if that’s where it belongs, but I failed to make the connection.

 

You seem to feel that nothing needs to be done, because the mear existance of lame caches doesn't hurt anybody other than those folks who go out of their way to be offended. (I.e; knowing a cache is carpy, hunting it anyway, then whining about it) I feel differently, as I've stated numerous times throughout this discussion.

Sometimes you say something should be done to fix the "problem," other times you back off from that and claim you're merely expressing an opinion.

 

Right now you're back to saying something should be "done" (see the bold parts in your quoted words).

 

What, exactly, do you propose to “do” then?

 

Telling them that they aren’t putting a satisfactory level of pizzazz into their hides is only going to make you come off looking like an annoying busybody. Got any other plans?

[+KBI]

Hi CR!

 

Hmmm... Sounds like the two loudest voices in this thread agree on the major issue of the existence of lame caches, roughly what is a lame cache, and neither like lame caches.

 

However, from what I'm getting is one wants to discourage said lame caches and the other tacitly, or otherwise, approves of them. I'm curious why the latter wouldn't want to increase the general level of entertainment, or "un-lame-ness," of the hobby?

Because it's not my place to increase it, neither is it yours or anybody else's.

 

It's not my place to tell others what the're allowed or not allowed to find enjoyable while playing the game, neither is it yours or anybody else's.

 

There is no need to seek a solution where no problem exists.

 

(I have already detailed my position rather thoroughly. You obviously haven't read the entire thread. I don't blame you -- it's a very long thread -- but please also understand that I have limited patience for repeating myself. )

[+KBI]

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

 

Not to start another arguement.. but many of those "historical caches" should probably be archived for environmental impact reasons.

Hi Ed!

 

Just curious: Since you seem to be ignoring my last response to you, does that mean I convinced you to rethink your call for folks to archive caches you think are too "lame" to be worthy of listing?

[+ePeterso2]

Numbers aren't the game. Container quality isn't the game. Availability or lack of parking isn't the game. Cache titles and lists of initial contents aren't the game. Burger King and Wal-Mart parking lots certainly aren't the game.

 

A good game (or cache) is one that presents you with interesting decision (or series of decisions), then rewards you or penalizes you based upon what you decide. A lame cache is one that doesn't present you with any decisions that are fun to make, or doesn't reward you for making them.

 

There are all sorts of decisions that can be thrown at cache hunters:

 

- Where the heck is that cache anyway? (puzzles, multis)

- Where could I park? (sometimes finding parking could be its own challenge, especially in urban areas)

- Where's the trail head?

- Is the cache here? Or there? Or over there?

- I can see it, but how do I get to it?

- I can get to it, but how do I open it?

 

And there are other meta-decisions?

 

- I've only got X minutes available to cache ... to which area should I go to max my cache-finding potential?

 

I like caches that offer choices and rewards.

 

-eP

[Mushtang]

KBI and Clan Riffster,

 

Every time I'm forced to click on the link to read this thread, and forced to read all the posts by the two of you debating this thing to death, I'm disappointed at how you've failed to entertain me.

 

Shouldn't threads like this be locked as soon as they become uninteresting?

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh crud, I thought Markwell was going to close the thread.

I'm not a mod in this forum - only the Getting Started.

You could make a recommendation, you know.

You're asking for the thread to be closed? Please tell me you're not one of those people.

 

BZZZZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer. I will not be labeled as someone who has "common misconceptions", and is angst-ridden, just because that Snoogans guy says so.

[Mr.Yuck]

Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

Very lame. I agree with you 100%. Assuming there is nothing else to it, then I, personally, would characterize that cache you just described as uninteresting, common, ordinary, tedious, boring, overdone, uninspired, corny, lackluster, clichéd and unoriginal. If I were only allowed to use one word, then yes, “lame” would express it perfectly for me.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your point?

 

Sorry KBI, I apparently was confusing you with THE BIG THREE defenders of any carp anyone puts anywhere and calls it a cache, who'd never admit such a thing. They know who they are.

 

OK, so the above cache is lame. I've seen dozens if not hundreds. No redeeming value. Just in a parking lot with a 5 word cache description, and generating nothing but 5 word find logs. Lame as lame can be. Nothing but a smiley orgy for the smiley obsessed. So a point? Of course I have a point. It's right here on the top of my head. That aside, if it can be agreed that this is lame, and I'm sure it can also be agreed that no such "caches" existed early in the development of this game, and such caches have increased in number at an astronomical rate of growth, how can it not be said that it represents an overall deterioration of the quality of the game?

 

For me, it's just the next logical line of thinking that the proliferation of lameness led to the overall deterioration of the game. I dunno, maybe it's just me! Is it just me?

[+Ambrosia]

Numbers aren't the game. Container quality isn't the game. Availability or lack of parking isn't the game. Cache titles and lists of initial contents aren't the game. Burger King and Wal-Mart parking lots certainly aren't the game.

 

A good game (or cache) is one that presents you with interesting decision (or series of decisions), then rewards you or penalizes you based upon what you decide. A lame cache is one that doesn't present you with any decisions that are fun to make, or doesn't reward you for making them.

 

There are all sorts of decisions that can be thrown at cache hunters:

 

- Where the heck is that cache anyway? (puzzles, multis)

- Where could I park? (sometimes finding parking could be its own challenge, especially in urban areas)

- Where's the trail head?

- Is the cache here? Or there? Or over there?

- I can see it, but how do I get to it?

- I can get to it, but how do I open it?

 

And there are other meta-decisions?

 

- I've only got X minutes available to cache ... to which area should I go to max my cache-finding potential?

 

I like caches that offer choices and rewards.

 

-eP

I guess I don't see geocaching as a game, if those are the definitions.

 

- Where the heck is that cache anyway? (puzzles, multis)

 

I greatly dislike puzzles, and multis are sometimes nice on a case to case basis.

 

- Where could I park? (sometimes finding parking could be its own challenge, especially in urban areas)

 

I hate figuring out where to park. Getting a gps with turn by turn has made life a much happier place.

 

- Where's the trail head?

 

This is not fun for me, this makes me mumble bad things under my breath and waste a lot of time that could be fun.

 

- Is the cache here? Or there? Or over there?

 

I personally prefer to find the cache rather quickly. Just a personal thing, I guess. I usually like where the cache takes me, not how hard it is the find the thing.

 

- I can see it, but how do I get to it?

 

Nuh-uh. Not cool.

 

- I can get to it, but how do I open it?

 

Even worse. Why in the world would I want to have a cache in my hands and not know how to open it and then have to give up in frustration because my mind does not work that way and then have to walk away and never sign the log?

 

I think that caching should be about getting coords, go to the coords, find a cache, log it, go home and write about it. Along the way, it's a nice bonus if I see a cool view, get taken somewhere new, get a long hike or alternatavely be able to get a quick fix, spend time with my family and friends, and learn something (especially history).

 

I guess we all have different ideas about what makes this an enjoyable sport.

[+mudsneaker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Ambrosia]

I'm sure that I'm not going to change people's minds with just one post. But I have to put this one out for people to think about.

 

When someone has a lot of finds, and caches a lot and goes to all sorts of caches including things like lamp post hides, people will often label that as a someone who caches for the numbers.

 

I dislike having a universal idea like that, because it doesn't take into account each person's thoughts and reasons, and then we start thinking that across the board all of those people must be "numbers hounds", or "a numbers ho".

 

Yes, there are some who cache for the smilie. But not everyone, and so if we do away with that label, it's possible that we'll all be more open to understanding certain people like CCCooperAngency and others for example, and not judge them before getting to know them.

 

The reason that I am bringing this up in this thread, is because I've seen this universal label being tossed out there every once in a while, and each time it bugs me. Each time someone says it, it gives all of us the subtle push to think this is always true and then we start forgetting to take each case one by one.

 

I can start with me:

 

I personally like to cache. A lot. I like to get a "fix" as much as possible. This does not mean that I go out to "get another smilie". This means that I like caching, even if it means that I find a cache that isn't the best cache that I've ever found. I prefer certain kinds of hides, yes. But I'm just happy when I cache. If smilies were taken away from geocaching, it wouldn't affect my caching at all. I do like having the logs and dates in my profile where I can see them because I love the journal/history/timeline and pictures for my own memories.

 

<This has been a personal educational announcement. And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic>

[+Cornerstone4]

 

I can start with me:

 

I like to get a "fix" as much as possible.

 

Thank you for giving me my "Amber Fix" for the day!

[+Ambrosia]

Anybody can be quoted in an interesting way.

 

You're welcome.

[Clan Riffster]

As a cache owner, I resent anyone telling me my hide isn’t good enough.

I'm not telling you that your hide isn't good enough. I'm telling you that I believe folks should apply some thought to the hiding process. If you look at one of your hides, and decide for yourself that it's a real loser, you would then be faced with a choice:

1. Do nothing
   
2. Adjust it until you no longer felt it was a loser, or
   
3. Archive it
   

Feel free to set good examples of inspired genius with your own hides, but as soon as you start criticizing the creativity of others’ hides, you become a boor.

I don't mind being boorish if it's for a good cause.

 

You’re telling me (as a “lame cache” owner) that I need to think these things through a little more (your words) so I won’t produce such LAME caches, and that my creativity sucks. What’s the difference?

I didn't say your creativity sucks. In fact, I have been most careful not to criticize any individual cachers or caches. What I did say was folks should put some thought into their hides. If you read so much into that statement that you feel "pushed", then perhaps you have some latent guilt issues to work through.

 

And telling thousands of volunteer, amateur fellow participants system-wide that they totally suck at cache design ISN’T rude? Whether your whining is targeted at a specific hide or a whole class of hides isn’t the point.

Do you consider lameness to be a class of hide?

 

So ... you’re no longer asking for existing hides to be changed, you just want all future cache hiders to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing that doesn’t satisfy your personal aesthetic? Well, at least I’m making SOME progress.

I'm unclear as to what "progress" you're making. Since I never asked that anyone's cache, anywhere, be changed, nor have I asked anyone, anywhere, to stop doing things, my not doing so certainly isn't a sudden change.

 

You just said above that you’re "asking" all future cache hiders to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing that doesn’t satisfy your personal aesthetic.

What I said was, I believe folks should apply some thought to their hides. Nothing more. How you choose to translate my statement is entirely up to you. If you decide that it's in your best interest to translate it in such a way as to allow you to continue your argument, that's OK. It's a free world. If you choose to translate it in such a way that my statement remains at least somewhat similar to it's original meaning, that's OK as well.

 

So if ALL of them agreed to "think about it," and they ALL concluded that the only thing they needed to add was an invitation to you to take your opinions and go jump in the lake and leave them alone, you’d still be tickled pink?

I'll assume the actual, physical jumping into the lake part is rhetoric, and answer "Yes", I would be tickled pink. If they honestly asked me to immerse myself in some nearby body of water, I would be glad that they turned on their brain for at least a little while, but I would probably abstain from the aquatic activities section of their suggestion.

 

It does apply. It’s critical to our debate.

Perhaps it's critical to the continuation of your argument, but it certainly isn't relevant to what we are discussing.

 

Each of us has the power to either avoid lame caches before we find them, or to emotionally recover from them afterward. There’s no need to let them spoil your fun

Nobody is arguing this but you.

 

, and there’s certainly no need for you or anyone else to go around telling others what they should and should not be hiding,

I'm not telling anybody, anywhere, what they should or should not be hiding. I'm suggesting that folks should apply a bit of thought to their hide process.

Edited December 9, 2006 by Clan Riffster

[+ePeterso2]

I think that caching should be about getting coords, go to the coords, find a cache, log it, go home and write about it. Along the way, it's a nice bonus if I see a cool view, get taken somewhere new, get a long hike or alternatavely be able to get a quick fix, spend time with my family and friends, and learn something (especially history).

That sounds more like Waymarking to me, actually.

 

I guess we all have different ideas about what makes this an enjoyable sport.

Agreed, completely. That this sport supports multiple modes of enjoyment is a way good thing.

 

-eP

Edited December 9, 2006 by ePeterso2

[+Team GeoBlast]

... it is possible to regulate across the board the number and or frequency of hides.

 

...

 

What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches?

 

...

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

That's it! What we really need are lots and lots of ever-more restrictive rules. So what if the Lame-Os aren't hurting anybody? If they won't voluntarily toe the line of Proper Geocaching Behavior, we'll legislate them into Proper Geocaching Behavior!

 

Maybe if we legislated mean people out of the forums, a productive discussion could be possible. Go pick on the Cliffster, I don't want to play like you.

[Clan Riffster]

You can call it “only my humble opinion” all you like, but in my opinion it’s very bad manners – and the very opposite of “humble.”

I'll have to look back through my previous posts. I don't think I've used the term "humble" to describe my opinions in this thread. If I did, I assure you it was simple reflex. Once again, you're taking my statements and adding to them or translating them in such a manner as to allow you to carry on with your argument. In effect, you're arguing with yourself, which paints a rather amusing picture.

 

Your criticisms are therefore moot, and only serve to annoy those who happen to enjoy those types of hides.

The only criticisms I've mentioned relate to what kinds of hides I think are lame. You've made similar criticisms in what you think are lame. Are we then both moot?

 

Apples and oranges.

To you, perhaps. It's arrogant to assume that I'll see the two as being different. I see them as apples & apples. In my opinion, both hides are detrimental to the game, therefore, they are both "apples", in my view.

 

What you’re trying to do is draw a line of acceptability regarding creativity.

No, what I'm doing is asking folks to apply a bit of thought to their hides. No lines need drawing.

 

Lack of creativity is NOT harmful.

Spoken like a true Liberal Arts major.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Perhaps you don't see lack of creativity as harmful. That doesn't mean it's not. It only means that you don't think it is. I, on the other hand, believe that lame, uninspired hides are harmful to the game. I can accept that you don't feel this way. We're both presumably grown up enough to have differing viewpoints without resorting to absolutes.

 

Your comparison suggests that a minimum creativity standard needs to be added to the guidelines – is that what you really want?

I'm not sure where you drug that notion up from. Did you miss the part where I stated I would not ban lame caches if given the power to do so? Remember my "Education Vs. Legislation" statement? You seem to be fairly adept at reading, so I doubt you missed that. Perhaps this is a case of intentional misunderstanding? That would certainly serve your need to continue arguing.

 

You state quite clearly that it is your “belief that lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game.”

That is correct. You've somehow managed to capture the essence of my beliefs in one simple statement. I applaud you, Sir.

 

You then go on for two long paragraphs NOT telling me how lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game.

Those were comparative analogies. If you didn't get them, you probably never will. That's OK. This is not meant as an insult. Some folks simply are unable to grasp concepts which are alien to their individual belief structure, or which run absolutely parallel to their beliefs. Hence, your "apples & oranges" theory. You see the comparisons as being so different as to have no comparative value. I do not.

 

(The "blatant guidelines violation" thing being irrelevant as I described above.)

The "blatant guidelines violation" thing is absolutely relevant to those who see them as being relevant.

 

Sometimes you say something should be done to fix the "problem," other times you back off from that and claim you're merely expressing an opinion. Right now you're back to saying something should be "done". What, exactly, do you propose to “do” then?

Sorry. I thought I was pretty clear earlier. I propose that folks apply a bit of thought to their hide process.

[Clan Riffster]

Go pick on the Cliffster.

Meanie!

[+KBI]

Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

Very lame. I agree with you 100%. Assuming there is nothing else to it, then I, personally, would characterize that cache you just described as uninteresting, common, ordinary, tedious, boring, overdone, uninspired, corny, lackluster, clichéd and unoriginal. If I were only allowed to use one word, then yes, “lame” would express it perfectly for me.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your point?

Sorry KBI, I apparently was confusing you with THE BIG THREE defenders of any carp anyone puts anywhere and calls it a cache, who'd never admit such a thing. They know who they are.

No, you're not confused. That's me! Who would ever admit such a thing? I would!

 

I even earned myself a cool new title: Staunch Defender of Everything Lame.

 

I agreed with you that the cache you described was lame. I never said I wouldn’t hunt it.

 

I also never said I prefer to hunt uninspired caches, but as long as people continue to whine that they constitute some kind of problem, demand that they be "improved" beyond the owner's original intent, or call for them to be purged from the listings, I'll defend their right to exist.

 

OK, so the above cache is lame. I've seen dozens if not hundreds. No redeeming value.

I was with you for the first two sentences, but you lost me on the third. Who are you to say that a given cache has no redeeming value?

 

Someone placed it there. Why would they waste their time placing it if they didn't have some good reason? Have you ever considered that someone just might actually like those types of hides you love to ridicule?

 

Just in a parking lot with a 5 word cache description, and generating nothing but 5 word find logs. Lame as lame can be. Nothing but a smiley orgy for the smiley obsessed. So ..... if it can be agreed that this is lame, and I'm sure it can also be agreed that no such "caches" existed early in the development of this game, and such caches have increased in number at an astronomical rate of growth, how can it not be said that it represents an overall deterioration of the quality of the game?

Again, you lost me right at the end. Yes, there are lots of less-than-exciting caches, but I disagree with your conclusion that the quality of one’s caching experience need necessarily suffer. How does the mere existence of a cache you DON'T like spoil your enjoyment of those you DO like? Why can't BOTH types coexist? Who cares how many there are?

 

I'm sure it can also be agreed that no such "caches" existed early in the development of this game

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything? Is there some arbitrary point in the evolution of a pastime that “development” becomes a bad word? Maybe there should be a word for folks who feel that development should have been stopped at some random point in Geocaching history. How about “Amish?”

 

For me, it's just the next logical line of thinking that the proliferation of lameness led to the overall deterioration of the game. I dunno, maybe it's just me! Is it just me?

You have a right to draw any conclusion like, but I for one have seen no such deterioration.

[+KBI]

So if ALL of them agreed to "think about it," and they ALL concluded that the only thing they needed to add was an invitation to you to take your opinions and go jump in the lake and leave them alone, you’d still be tickled pink?

I'll assume the actual, physical jumping into the lake part is rhetoric, and answer "Yes", I would be tickled pink.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And I'm happy to hear that answer. Owners of hides that you think are lame should be left alone to hide their caches any way they like (as long as they comply with Guidelines and TOS) without your, my, or anyone else's uninvited input.

 

Each of us has the power to either avoid lame caches before we find them, or to emotionally recover from them afterward. There’s no need to let them spoil your fun

Nobody is arguing this but you.

Again, if you agree with me on that then our positions on this issue are very close.

 

, and there’s certainly no need for you or anyone else to go around telling others what they should and should not be hiding,

I'm not telling anybody, anywhere, what they should or should not be hiding. I'm suggesting that folks should apply a bit of thought to their hide process.

Now THAT one's a contradicition. What they hid was okay ... but it should have been thought through a bit more before it was placed in order for it to be okay?

 

If they're already hiding what they want to hide, then what else is there to think about?

[+edscott]

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

 

Not to start another arguement.. but many of those "historical caches" should probably be archived for environmental impact reasons.

Hi Ed!

 

Just curious: Since you seem to be ignoring my last response to you, does that mean I convinced you to rethink your call for folks to archive caches you think are too "lame" to be worthy of listing?

 

Yes!!!! completely oh King. I will become a Knight of the Lamp Post and go forth proudly!!!

[+KBI]

Maybe if we legislated mean people out of the forums, a productive discussion could be possible. Go pick on the Cliffster, I don't want to play like you.

If you're going to propose annoyingly restrictive new rules, don't get annoyed when people point out that those rules would be annoying.

[+KBI]

Your criticisms are therefore moot, and only serve to annoy those who happen to enjoy those types of hides.

The only criticisms I've mentioned relate to what kinds of hides I think are lame. You've made similar criticisms in what you think are lame. Are we then both moot?

We’re not moot, but our criticisms are. You’re the one publicly whining about lame hides. Until this thread I pretty much kept my opinions to myself because I’ve never perceived lameness to be a problem.

 

Apples and oranges.

To you, perhaps. It's arrogant to assume that I'll see the two as being different. I see them as apples & apples. In my opinion, both hides are detrimental to the game, therefore, they are both "apples", in my view.

Really? You think lame caches represent a threat equal to that of cache hides that involve “blatant guidelines violations?” A bland hide is just as bad, in your opinion, as a porno-themed hide or a combination geocache/drug drop?

 

Earlier, when I said “Each of us has the power to either avoid lame caches before we find them, or to emotionally recover from them afterward. There’s no need to let them spoil your fun,” you agreed with me by saying “Nobody is arguing this but you.”

 

Lame caches are a serious problem, yet they're not a problem at all. How do you square these two contradictory-sounding positions?

 

Lack of creativity is NOT harmful.

Spoken like a true Liberal Arts major.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Perhaps you don't see lack of creativity as harmful. That doesn't mean it's not. It only means that you don't think it is. I, on the other hand, believe that lame, uninspired hides are harmful to the game. I can accept that you don't feel this way. We're both presumably grown up enough to have differing viewpoints without resorting to absolutes.

And presumably you’re going to continue claiming that uninspired hides are harmful to the game without offering anything convincing to explain exactly HOW uninspired hides are harmful to the game.

[+KBI]

Your comparison suggests that a minimum creativity standard needs to be added to the guidelines – is that what you really want?

I'm not sure where you drug that notion up from.

I got it here:

If you found a cache that was a blatant guidelines violation, would you report it? I would, because I believe such caches are detrimental to the game. For me, the same is true for lame caches. In my opinion, they are hurting this game.

You equated lame caches with blatant guidelines violations. Not just guidelines violations – you said “blatant” guidelines violations.

 

Therefore, your comparison suggests that a minimum creativity standard needs to be added to the guidelines. Or did I misunderstand?

 

You state quite clearly that it is your “belief that lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game.”

That is correct. You've somehow managed to capture the essence of my beliefs in one simple statement. I applaud you, Sir.

... and I’m still waiting to hear HOW lame caches have a detrimental effect on this game.

 

Sometimes you say something should be done to fix the "problem," other times you back off from that and claim you're merely expressing an opinion. Right now you're back to saying something should be "done". What, exactly, do you propose to “do” then?

Sorry. I thought I was pretty clear earlier. I propose that folks apply a bit of thought to their hide process.

…which implies that the amount of thought they applied originally, while perfectly acceptable to them, was obviously not acceptable to you ... which puts you back in the position of being a strangely dissatisfied boor, which is a function you appear to be happy with, but not one I'd aspire to.

[CoyoteRed]

Because it's not my place to increase it, neither is it yours or anybody else's.

 

Spoken like a person who truly doesn't care which hand basket he rides in or where it's going.

[+KBI]

Just curious: Since you seem to be ignoring my last response to you, does that mean I convinced you to rethink your call for folks to archive caches you think are too "lame" to be worthy of listing?

Yes!!!! completely oh King. I will become a Knight of the Lamp Post and go forth proudly!!!

Great!

 

And now we've BOTH got titles! I'm the Staunch Defender of Everything Lame, and you're a Knight of the Lamp Post!

 

Edited December 9, 2006 by KBI

[+KBI]

Because it's not my place to increase it, neither is it yours or anybody else's.

Spoken like a person who truly doesn't care which hand basket he rides in or where it's going.

That's it? Just a vague personal attack? No counter argument?

 

I'm going to Hell because I dare to suggest that there's no need to criticize, much less fear, a cache hider's lack of creativity?

 

You're supposed to discuss "lame" in this thread, not demonstrate it.

[Mushtang]

You're supposed to discuss "lame" in this thread, not demonstrate it.

 

ZING!

[CoyoteRed]

That's it? Just a vague personal attack? No counter argument?

 

What is there to argue? You have your opinion and I've got mine. There's no changing minds.

 

Fortunately, not everyone feels the same as you. Too bad for you, you can't change that.

[+team lagonda]

truely though,,the rules need loosing up about only placing caches in a gamelands or park..the way it is now the caches are becoming MIND NUMBING....

[+KBI]

Fortunately, not everyone feels the same as you. Too bad for you, you can't change that.

I’m not interested in changing anyone’s feelings. Where'd you get that? You don’t really know what we’re talking about here, do you? Please, CR, I asked you to read over this thread before making assumptions regarding my position.

 

What is there to argue? You have your opinion and I've got mine. There's no changing minds.

You don’t want to debate? Then why did you ask me why I "wouldn't want to increase the general level of entertainment, or "un-lame-ness," of the hobby?"

 

Your post strongly implied that the uncontrollable urge to "discourage said lame caches" is a praiseworthy thing, and that my "approving of" such caches is a bad thing. You followed up by telling me, via thinly-veiled language, that I was on my way to Hell for daring to express such an opinion.

 

Ducking in just long enough to fire off a couple statements like that, and then quickly leaving with a terse "there’s nothing else to argue" over your shoulder sure smells like a cowardly drive-by posting to me.

 

Not very impressive.

[CoyoteRed]

Not very impressive.

 

Good, I wasn't try to impress you. In fact, I really, really couldn't care less how you feel. Really.

 

"Drive-by posting?" Sure. Better than getting down in the gutter with you.

 

Still, we're left with not only you not wanting to better the hobby, but not wanting anyone else doing it either. That pretty much is the bottom line. Your words. "Because it's not my place to increase it, neither is it yours or anybody else's." That's you.

[+Osoling]

I would love a cache like that. It would give me something to do while the wife was agonizing over which olive oil is the best value. It's all in the write-up. Be honest about what it is, then let us decide.

 

I appreciate your sentiment, though. Lame caches are lame when the hiders don't proclaim the lameness. Full disclosure, baby!

 

I see this turned into a flame war. That's too bad. Go get some marshmellows and make smores by the fire. It's a game. Don't take it too seriously.

 

If someone needs something to get angry over, read this instead of fighting over geocaching.

 

Peace, love and caches.

 

D

[+KBI]

CoyoteRed doesn't want to debate:

 

"Drive-by posting?" Sure. Better than getting down in the gutter with you.

 

... but wait, CoyoteRed DOES want to debate:

 

Still, we're left with not only you not wanting to better the hobby, but not wanting anyone else doing it either. That pretty much is the bottom line. Your words. "Because it's not my place to increase it, neither is it yours or anybody else's." That's you.

 

Have cake ... eat cake ... it's a tough choice, eh?

 

Let me know when you make up your mind. I'm happy either way.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

Very lame. I agree with you 100%. Assuming there is nothing else to it, then I, personally, would characterize that cache you just described as uninteresting, common, ordinary, tedious, boring, overdone, uninspired, corny, lackluster, clichéd and unoriginal. If I were only allowed to use one word, then yes, “lame” would express it perfectly for me.

Well, most of those descriptors could be applied to just about any cache after one has found a significant number and variety of hides.

 

The *yawn* ho-hum factor is terrific after a few hundred caches. Even the unlame ones are all the same in one way or another. Even a nice walk in the woods is just another nice walk in the woods.

 

lameness is totally an additudinal thing. If all you expect is another piece of paper to sign, then the entire game will become lame. But if you look at it differently, for instance looking at a cache hunt as as simply a LAME excuse to get out from in front of the TV or computer and go somewhere you have never been before, then even the crappiest soggy logged magenetic lamppost cache will be KEWL. And yes, going to your local walmart is at least getting out of the house.

 

How about this for a new premise?

Lameness is not in the EYE of the beholder, but in the ATTITUDE of the beholder.

[+wavector]

all you expect is another piece of paper to sign

 

Actually, I expect a piece of paper that I can sign.

 

It isn't much of an expectation, or a distinction, but I think it is important.

A cache hunt is always enjoyable but they are all the same in that they end at another piece of paper to sign. At the end of the hunt there is a place to sign the logbook. (obvious exceptions aside virts etc)

A wet logbook that cannot be signed is different from the other conditions in that it is not subjective. I would venture that the piece of paper that the finder can sign might be the only reasonable expectation that any seeker could ask of a geocache hider today. There are implications but no obvious conclusions to this expectation.

If I were to elevate any single aspect of geocache hiding as important it would be the logbook, the "piece of paper that I can sign".

Edited December 10, 2006 by wavector

[Clan Riffster]

I even earned myself a cool new title: Staunch Defender of Everything Lame.

To be technically accurate, you adopted the title of Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame. Wearing that particular mantle was your choice, since you're the one who stated, repeatedly, that you belong to such an august assemblage.

 

Who are you to say that a given cache has no redeeming value?

He, (or she?), is TheWhiteUrkel.

 

Why would they waste their time placing it if they didn't have some good reason?

Because they have compulsion issues?

 

Is there some arbitrary point in the evolution of a pastime that “development” becomes a bad word?

Apparently the arbitrary point where "development" becomes a bad word is when folks attempt to improve the game.

 

If they're already hiding what they want to hide, then what else is there to think about?

Improving the game? The literacy level in Mozambique? Where do all those lost socks go? Where does George W. hide his magic button for increasing the price of gas? If you bought a helicopter, and painted it black, would it qualify as a Black Helicopter? What does KBI stand for, anyway? How much would a picture of Jeremy wearing an aluminum foil hat sell for on Ebay? Why can you prick you finger, but not....uh....better skip that one. If you played Bob Marley's "Chant Down Babylon" backwards, would you really hear Jesus saying smoking pot is OK? So many questions....

 

You think lame caches represent a threat equal to that of cache hides that involve “blatant guidelines violations?” A bland hide is just as bad, in your opinion, as a porno-themed hide or a combination geocache/drug drop?

I do believe they are both bad, and I do believe they both hurt the game, but that doesn't mean I think they are equal in all aspects. A pipe bomb in a Volvo is bad, just as a thermonuclear device in a U-Haul is bad. However, they are not equal. But I suspect you knew that already.

 

Lame caches are a serious problem, yet they're not a problem at all. How do you square these two contradictory-sounding positions?

Since I never claimed they weren't a problem, I see no need for me to do any squaring. I avoid lame hides so that my limited amount of play time is not hampered by them. That doesn't mean they are not a problem. But I suspect you knew that, as well.

 

Therefore, your comparison suggests that a minimum creativity standard needs to be added to the guidelines. Or did I misunderstand?

You misunderstood. Since the concept is so simple my 10 year old grasped it, I suspect your misunderstanding was intentional, and done solely so you could continue your argument.

 

a cowardly drive-by posting

Dude, I loved that line! Even though it was inaccurate as applied by you, I still think it was funny as heck.

 

It's past my bedtime. I'll check on y'all later.

Shalom!

[Clan Riffster]

Did I just say "Dude"?

Sorry.

[Mr.Yuck]

I even earned myself a cool new title: Staunch Defender of Everything Lame.

To be technically accurate, you adopted the title of Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame. Wearing that particular mantle was your choice, since you're the one who stated, repeatedly, that you belong to such an august assemblage.

 

Who are you to say that a given cache has no redeeming value?

He, (or she?), is TheWhiteUrkel.

 

Dude, don't take me out of context! (Sorry, couldn't resist the dude reference )

Fortunately for me, that was about a hypothetical, non-existant cache, and was an opinion. I may or may not believe some real, existant caches have no redeeming value, but those are only the voices in my head.

[Mr.Yuck]

Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

 

Very lame. I agree with you 100%. Assuming there is nothing else to it, then I, personally, would characterize that cache you just described as uninteresting, common, ordinary, tedious, boring, overdone, uninspired, corny, lackluster, clichéd and unoriginal. If I were only allowed to use one word, then yes, “lame” would express it perfectly for me.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your point?

 

Sorry KBI, I apparently was confusing you with THE BIG THREE defenders of any carp anyone puts anywhere and calls it a cache, who'd never admit such a thing. They know who they are.

No, you're not confused. That's me! Who would ever admit such a thing? I would!

 

I even earned myself a cool new title: Staunch Defender of Everything Lame.

 

I agreed with you that the cache you described was lame. I never said I wouldn’t hunt it.

 

Fiddlesticks. As much as I'd like to give a nicely formatted reply with supporting quotes KBI, I'm apparently BB Code challenged. Maybe if this was on usenet or an email exchange, it would be within my bounds of competence.

 

I love your cool new title!!!! I have a title too: The Geo-Police. Of course I don't agree with it.

[Mr.Yuck]

Someone placed it there. Why would they waste their time placing it if they didn't have some good reason? Have you ever considered that someone just might actually like those types of hides you love to ridicule?

 

I dunno KBI, "those types of hides you love to ridicule" seems a little harsh. I'm not the schoolyard bully. I mean, I'm TheWhiteUrkel for petes sake, how threatening can that be? We're talking about this:

 

 

But seriously, that "some people like them" line drives me crazy. I personally can't comprehend anyone "liking" them. (keep in mind, we're talking about the hypothetical parking lot lamp skirt cache, with a 5 word cache description). Someone "likes" lifting up lamp skirts finding dozens of identically hidden caches in parking lots, while looking like a complete whack job in public?? In my opinion smileys are logged for these type of caches by two groups of people. A) The numbers obsessed and B)Those who came along after the start of the Micro Spew era, who think it's just normal (which unfortunately, it is )

 

And OK, maybe C) Those people who always say "I need to clear all the nearest to home caches off the PQ". (memo to those people: the ignore list is your friend!!)

 

I do acknowledge that with the comraderie of group caching, a run through all the parking lots in town could be great fun. Not that I've ever done it, of course.

Edited December 10, 2006 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+KBI]

I'm apparently BB Code challenged.

I used to be too. I'm slow and it took me a while. It's not all that hard, but there are a few tricks to it. Post a request for help on the Getting Started Forum and you'll get all the help you need. Or email me and I'll be happy to talk you through it.

[+KBI]

But seriously, that "some people like them" line drives me crazy. I personally can't comprehend anyone "liking" them. (keep in mind, we're talking about the hypothetical parking lot lamp skirt cache, with a 5 word cache description). Someone "likes" lifting up lamp skirts finding dozens of identically hidden caches in parking lots, while looking like a complete whack job in public?? In my opinion smileys are logged for these type of caches by two groups of people. A) The numbers obsessed and B)Those who came along after the start of the Micro Spew era, who think it's just normal (which unfortunately, it is )

Man, that is sooooo arrogant. Fellow players whose game preferences are different from yours are wack and abnormal?

 

The arrogance of that paragraph is so extreme that I'm fairly convinced you don't really believe any of that, and that you're just trolling me to see how I'll react. I feel a stroooong tug on my leg.

 

Go tell all that stuff to this guy. Which abnormal group is he, "A" or "B?"

[+KBI]

Why would they waste their time placing it if they didn't have some good reason?

Because they have compulsion issues?

So those who's motivations (or mental health status) don't satisfy your standards don’t deserve to participate in the game?

 

Is there some arbitrary point in the evolution of a pastime that “development” becomes a bad word?

Apparently the arbitrary point where "development" becomes a bad word is when folks un-asked busybodies attempt to improve the game by telling others that the way they play is unacceptable.

Fixed.

[+KBI]

If they're already hiding what they want to hide, then what else is there to think about?

Improving the game? The literacy level in Mozambique? Where do all those lost socks go? Where does George W. hide his magic button for increasing the price of gas? If you bought a helicopter, and painted it black, would it qualify as a Black Helicopter? What does KBI stand for, anyway? How much would a picture of Jeremy wearing an aluminum foil hat sell for on Ebay? Why can you prick you finger, but not....uh....better skip that one. If you played Bob Marley's "Chant Down Babylon" backwards, would you really hear Jesus saying smoking pot is OK? So many questions....

My point exactly.

 

Cacher decides to hide a cache. Cacher comes up with an idea he likes. Cacher excitedly hides cache. C. R. and CR come along and tell cacher he should have put more thought into it. Cacher thinks to himself: “but I DID think about it! I like it, people are enjoying finding it ... what else do they want me to think about?”

 

You think lame caches represent a threat equal to that of cache hides that involve “blatant guidelines violations?” A bland hide is just as bad, in your opinion, as a porno-themed hide or a combination geocache/drug drop?

I do believe they are both bad, and I do believe they both hurt the game, but that doesn't mean I think they are equal in all aspects. A pipe bomb in a Volvo is bad, just as a thermonuclear device in a U-Haul is bad. However, they are not equal. But I suspect you knew that already.

Your analogy, man. First you said they were the same, now you say they’re not. That doesn’t do a thing to convince me that the mere existence of caches you don’t like are a Threat To The Game ... but I suspect you knew that already.

 

A surge in the number of porn-themed caches represents a threat. A surge in the number of whatever-you-happen-to-think-is-lame caches constitutes nothing more than an annoyance -- and that's only if you let it bother you.