Jump to content

Your Opinion Please


woodsters
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

There's been the discussion on the "vacation caches" and about some of the techniques used on allowing them. One that comes to mind is that it has been mentioned that the approvers will look at the caching history of the placer and will take that into consideration. For instance, I live in New England, but I am from Georgia. They would frown upon a little of me placing a cache in Georgia if I didn't have any finds in that area (altohugh I do and this is hypothetical). But since I do, it might be considered more. Although the finds in the area are not the only thing they look at.

 

My question is on those that place caches with no records of finds. Especially those with accounts that are made up the same day a cache is placed. Would that not be a red flag of a sock puppet account or perhaps a "vacation cache" trying to circumvent the guidelines? I've mentioned it before about people could get around by doing that because caches tend to get approved like that. Is it actually fair for someone who is an avid cacher and truthful be turned down because they may want to place a cache which they feel they could maintain but never cached in the area? Or should they just make a sock puppet account and submit it that way with no recorded finds?

Link to comment
There's been the discussion on the "vacation caches" and about some of the techniques used on allowing them. One that comes to mind is that it has been mentioned that the approvers will look at the caching history of the placer and will take that into consideration. For instance, I live in New England, but I am from Georgia. They would frown upon a little of me placing a cache in Georgia if I didn't have any finds in that area (altohugh I do and this is hypothetical). But since I do, it might be considered more. Although the finds in the area are not the only thing they look at.

 

My question is on those that place caches with no records of finds. Especially those with accounts that are made up the same day a cache is placed. Would that not be a red flag of a sock puppet account or perhaps a "vacation cache" trying to circumvent the guidelines? I've mentioned it before about people could get around by doing that because caches tend to get approved like that. Is it actually fair for someone who is an avid cacher and truthful be turned down because they may want to place a cache which they feel they could maintain but never cached in the area? Or should they just make a sock puppet account and submit it that way with no recorded finds?

How would you suggest we prevent the creation of an additional account from happening? Secondly since this is hypothetical, are we even sure that it happens enough, if at all, to warrant a new system being put in place to prevent something that may not even be a problem?

Link to comment
How would you suggest we prevent the creation of an additional account from happening? Secondly since this is hypothetical, are we even sure that it happens enough, if at all, to warrant a new system being put in place to prevent something that may not even be a problem?

Sounds like a kirting of the issue. Yes it has happened before and does happen. This was a quesiton on peoples opinions of it. My opinion would be that since you can't stop this from happening (sock puppet account), then why hold it agains those cachers who are legtitimate and honest about it?

 

Planet, I have gone caching and even if I haven't that wouldn't amount to a hill of beens on this discusssion.

Link to comment

How do we know there aren't other checks and measures in place? I can think of quite a few obvious ways that TPTB can see where a hider is located, even if they have zero finds or hides.

 

Wray_Clan: I've done that cache, and it pre-dates many of the current rules for caches. I doubt you could get that cache approved today.

Link to comment
How do we know there aren't other checks and measures in place? I can think of quite a few obvious ways that TPTB can see where a hider is located, even if they have zero finds or hides.

 

Are there Mopar? I could easily go home to Georgia and log onto the internet at my parents house. I already have an email there through a national internet cable company (Comcast). I could activate the account today and submit a cache today. It would get approved seeing that all other circumstances of caches getting approved were in place. I wouldn't have to have any finds. But on the other hand, I could log into my account and submit a cache. And if I didn't have any finds, then I would have to "convince" the approvers that it would be taken care of and maintained properly. Why would I do that, when I can do it quicker and easier the cheating way?

Link to comment

Woodster, I know you cache. But it sounds like your trying to dredge up problems that may not even exist. And if they do there isn't much one can do about it until it happens and it has been discovered that it did happen. Then I'm sure it'll be handled. But...oh never mind, you believe there is a problem, you go right on looking for answers. :unsure:

Edited by Planet
Link to comment

So planet, you are telling me that there are not any caches approved where the placer has no records of finds? Or how about the fact that accounts are made the same day as caches are placed? It happens all the time. How do you know that I have not done it? I may have! But I won't tell. Not dredging up anything. I've mentioned it before and thought about it again. There's a flaw in the system that affects the honest cachers out there. Is there a fix? Maybe. What if there was a requirement for a certain amount of finds before placing a cache? Heck that might even help on the quality of caches as well. There may be other solutions as well. Then again, you may be able to get around it all. So then why restrict people? Especially those with a good history? All that is happening is the spinning of wheels.

Link to comment
Wray Clan, but the question is, could a physical cache be hidden there? lmao

Not on the coordinates, no.

 

However, we did seem to, according to Mopar's log, create a very enjoyable and unique cache.

 

Sorry for bringing the topic off course.:unsure:

I mentioned that Wray, because of the usual answers from those that are anti-virtual. Mopar stated it wouldn't be accepted under todays guidelines. I thin hte anti-virts would also say it could be a leg of a multi or something like that.

Edited by woodsters
Link to comment

 

Are there Mopar? I could easily go home to Georgia and log onto the internet at my parents house. I already have an email there through a national internet cable company (Comcast). I could activate the account today and submit a cache today. It would get approved seeing that all other circumstances of caches getting approved were in place. I wouldn't have to have any finds. But on the other hand, I could log into my account and submit a cache. And if I didn't have any finds, then I would have to "convince" the approvers that it would be taken care of and maintained properly. Why would I do that, when I can do it quicker and easier the cheating way?

I suspect there are, because there was an incedent in my area last summer with someone logging a lot of fake finds with a sockpuppet account. TPTB were able to determine who the "real" geocacher was behind the sockpuppet, even though he was hiding behind a dynamic IP on a national ISP. I'm sure the more computer/web savy out there can find away around everything, but most people don't fall into that class. This conversation just brought back the memory of the person who sent a threatening email once through a sockpuppet hotmail account to a website I worked for. Even a fairly computer literate person as this guy was didn't know that hotmail passed along his (in this case static, and workplace) IP address. HA! His employer sure loved having THAT email forwarded to them!

There are all sorts of cookies and java apps. out there that could be used in conjunction with the website to help ID a sockpuppet. I have no idea what is or isn't used, but why risk getting your "real" account banned by trying to cheat the system?

Link to comment

Good question Mopar. But why does an approver approve hides for accounts with no history? My recommendation is require a certain amount of finds before submitting a hide. I guess it could be used as a learning tool as well and may help out on some of the improperly placed caches and the trouble.

Link to comment

This isn't rocket scientry. If a cache is placed by an eager newbie who has read the rules, followed the requirements, WHATS THE BIG DEAL ?

 

What do you want Woodster, licensing required ? Ever heard the rule of thumb, "If it aint broke, don't fix it ?" We can hypothetically weigh up fictitious problems all day, but why ?

Yes, you could run down to your parents and start a fictitious account, and submit a cache.

 

It would probably get approved, and it might be fine for years to come without you ever looking at it. Or it might not. Then someone would write in that the cache needed maintained. Then archived or adopted. problem solved.

 

If you want to place that Georgia cache, show some responsibility towards the sport and ask for the permission. Get someone lined up too do the maintenance checks. Contribute moree to the game than constant conflict. Moderators, administrators, and cachers are constantly stressing that responsible use by us all will negate the need for constrictive policies and rules. Be part of a solution, rather than suggesting new problems.

Link to comment
Wray Clan, but the question is, could a physical cache be hidden there? lmao

Not on the coordinates, no.

 

However, we did seem to, according to Mopar's log, create a very enjoyable and unique cache.

 

Sorry for bringing the topic off course.:unsure:

I mentioned that Wray, because of the usual answers from those that are anti-virtual. Mopar stated it wouldn't be accepted under todays guidelines. I thin hte anti-virts would also say it could be a leg of a multi or something like that.

I didn't say I didn't enjoy Wray's cache. Just that in my opinion, it doesn't meet the current guidelines for a cache on GC.com. No, you can't place a cache there, and even if you made it an offset to a physical, it would fail the commercial cache part (it's inside a part of Walt Disney World, and requires you to go on one of the attractions. Since this thread isn't about commercial caches, we won't go there in this thread, but a forum search should turn up my feelings about them.

Since the thread IS about vacation caches, (once again, sigh) I'm just stating that with the changes here since Wray's cache was approved, submitting a virtual because you can't maintain a physical cache is not considered an acceptable practice.

Link to comment
This isn't rocket scientry. If a cache is placed by an eager newbie who has read the rules, followed the requirements, WHATS THE BIG DEAL ?

 

What do you want Woodster, licensing required ? Ever heard the rule of thumb, "If it aint broke, don't fix it ?" We can hypothetically weigh up fictitious problems all day, but why ?

Yes, you could run down to your parents and start a fictitious account, and submit a cache.

 

It would probably get approved, and it might be fine for years to come without you ever looking at it. Or it might not. Then someone would write in that the cache needed maintained. Then archived or adopted. problem solved.

 

If you want to place that Georgia cache, show some responsibility towards the sport and ask for the permission. Get someone lined up too do the maintenance checks. Contribute moree to the game than constant conflict. Moderators, administrators, and cachers are constantly stressing that responsible use by us all will negate the need for constrictive policies and rules. Be part of a solution, rather than suggesting new problems.

Perfect post!

Link to comment
This isn't rocket scientry. If a cache is placed by an eager newbie who has read the rules, followed the requirements, WHATS THE BIG DEAL ?

 

What do you want Woodster, licensing required ? Ever heard the rule of thumb, "If it aint broke, don't fix it ?" We can hypothetically weigh up fictitious problems all day, but why ?

Yes, you could run down to your parents and start a fictitious account, and submit a cache.

 

It would probably get approved, and it might be fine for years to come without you ever looking at it. Or it might not. Then someone would write in that the cache needed maintained. Then archived or adopted. problem solved.

 

If you want to place that Georgia cache, show some responsibility towards the sport and ask for the permission. Get someone lined up too do the maintenance checks. Contribute moree to the game than constant conflict. Moderators, administrators, and cachers are constantly stressing that responsible use by us all will negate the need for constrictive policies and rules. Be part of a solution, rather than suggesting new problems.

Ummm...apparently it is broke. If sock puppet accounts aren't allowed then obviously it's broke, because they are there. If a person who has been caching for some time has to go through red tape or gets denied, but someone who "could" of just started or more than likely a sock puppet can get approved, then it's broken.

 

You are right, sock puppets could place caches every where and be fine. Then again they could go to heck and then go through the process of archiving it or adopting it. So why even worry about them at all? Because if you don't "say" they aren't allowed, then you can not try to stand on a leg when trying to restrict others.

Link to comment

I don't see that much of a problem woodsters, the geocaching is fairly self policing. If someone sees a problem with a cache, someone helps. If it needs maintained it will eventually be maintained. Sure, it might be hipocritical that TPTB enforce certain rules sometimes but not others, but it's just something you live with and notice why you're really even at these forums thinking about this, because you CACHE...

Link to comment

1) Virtuals are being redone anyway. When they're redone, we'll worry about them. If they move to their own section, then the vast majority of worries goes away, since the vast majority of worries has to do with virtuals and physical caches sharing the same web space.

 

2) Anything that distracts TPTB from getting the list of things that need to be done, done is a pain no one needs. It sounds like this is yet another attempt to get a lot of attention to get something done immediately about a situation that would get taken care of anyway if people simply let TPTB finish their "to do list". Until we know the plans for virtuals, why worry about it? Have you nothing better to do?

 

3) As far as flaws in the system that dishonest cachers can exploit, WHO CARES? I, personally, don't want the approval process for a cache to involve the local approver driving out, examining the area, checking the co-ordinates, making sure the cache contents don't include a leatherman, interviewing the local land managers, and checking the paint job to make sure that the shade of green is "forest green" instead of the unapproved "John Deere green", and then refusing to approve the cache on the grounds that the pencil was sharpened at only one end without a sharpener being added to the cache. You may think that's appropriate for the future of geocaching, but to me it sounds like a death knell.

Link to comment

Here's my opinion:

 

Why waste your time, or try to force others to waste theirs, trying to catch the few dishonest idiots ? More good can come of focusing resources elsewhere. Is your enjoyment of this game entirely dependant on being 100% sure that there is not a single person getting away with something you haven't ?

 

It's like this; I've camped at campgrounds where a fee IS required for staying there. All it is, is a gravel drive, leading to an open area with a fire ring.

 

The catch ? PAyment is an honor system. A locked box, and a sign. I pay. Do I think everyone does ? I know darn well they don't. Am I gonna try to get the owner to implement a wall, gatehouse, and attendant to make sure EVERYONE pays ? NOPE. I would be a bigger head-ache to them than the non-payers. Do I therefore let it bother me that someone else is getting a "FREE STAY" ? NOPE. I feel good about myself. Play by the rules, enjoy yourself, and screw the ones that break the rules.

 

Don't worry about what someone else is getting away with, and don't be a headache to TPTB by trying to make sure you get all the same stuff the cheaters do as well.

 

Don't mean to bring religion into it, but theres a scripture that says ( In essence, don't remember the exact wording ) Don't be envying the evildoer, they are having their reward in full.

Link to comment
This isn't rocket scientry. If a cache is placed by an eager newbie who has read the rules, followed the requirements, WHATS THE BIG DEAL ?

 

What do you want Woodster, licensing required ? Ever heard the rule of thumb, "If it aint broke, don't fix it ?" We can hypothetically weigh up fictitious problems all day, but why ?

Yes, you could run down to your parents and start a fictitious account, and submit a cache.

 

It would probably get approved, and it might be fine for years to come without you ever looking at it. Or it might not. Then someone would write in that the cache needed maintained. Then archived or adopted. problem solved.

 

If you want to place that Georgia cache, show some responsibility towards the sport and ask for the permission. Get someone lined up too do the maintenance checks. Contribute moree to the game than constant conflict. Moderators, administrators, and cachers are constantly stressing that responsible use by us all will negate the need for constrictive policies and rules. Be part of a solution, rather than suggesting new problems.

I'm proud of you Captain Chaoss!! Come give me a big ole hug. :unsure:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Ummm...apparently it is broke. If sock puppet accounts aren't allowed then obviously it's broke, because they are there.

If you have a sock puppet account on geocaching.com then you need a job. And if you already have a job, you need another one.

 

I don't understand what is so hard about any of this. If you don't live there, or don't make repeated visits to a certain spot, then, NO, you don't place a cache there. This has been beaten to death. This is not hard. There is 3,023 miles between Ocean City, Maryland and Sacramento California, I'm sure there are plenty of places to put a cache near anyone's home in between there.

Edited by Ce'Nedra
Link to comment

Howzabout a rule for vacation caches, which we are implementing on our own:

 

Three consecutive DNFs, archive it. This way, you can be sure that's it misplaced (somebody (singular) has missed our cache). Sure, its a pain for the three people, but we've attempted several caches in our area, hidden by people in our area, that were gone. Its just one of the lumps in the sport that you have to take.

 

Now, following this rule requires somewhat constant moderation of your cache, you should be doing this anyways, because you spent the (extra) time to hide a cache in an unfamiliar area, you probably care about it!

 

edit: I was typing while the last five-or-so posts were being posted

Edited by wray_clan
Link to comment

Chaos that's fine and dandy. But what happens when you want to do something honestly, but can't. But you know you can do it by cheating? Would you? Probably not from what you said. The topic I brought up has to do with a fact that honest members can not do something. It's known and allowed for you to cheat to do it. Why not try to take measures from letting cheaters ahead and honest people behind. My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one. It definitely would not hurt the sport any. Also why should approvers even worry about vacation caches at all? It takes time away from other things as someone stated, right? Just let it go and let the cachers police it...

Link to comment
This isn't rocket scientry.  If a cache is placed by an eager newbie who has read the rules, followed the requirements, WHATS THE BIG DEAL ?

 

What do you want Woodster, licensing required ? Ever heard the rule of thumb, "If it aint broke, don't fix it ?" We can hypothetically weigh up fictitious problems all day, but why ?

Yes, you could run down to your parents and start a fictitious account, and submit a cache.

 

It would probably get approved, and it might be fine for years to come without you ever looking at it. Or it might not. Then someone would write in that the cache needed maintained. Then archived or adopted. problem solved.

 

If you want to place that Georgia cache, show some responsibility towards the sport and ask for the permission. Get someone lined up too do the maintenance checks. Contribute moree to the game than constant conflict. Moderators, administrators, and cachers are constantly stressing that responsible use by us all will negate the need for constrictive policies and rules. Be part of a solution, rather than suggesting new problems.

Ummm...apparently it is broke. If sock puppet accounts aren't allowed then obviously it's broke, because they are there. If a person who has been caching for some time has to go through red tape or gets denied, but someone who "could" of just started or more than likely a sock puppet can get approved, then it's broken.

 

You are right, sock puppets could place caches every where and be fine. Then again they could go to heck and then go through the process of archiving it or adopting it. So why even worry about them at all? Because if you don't "say" they aren't allowed, then you can not try to stand on a leg when trying to restrict others.

Maybe you should apply to be an approver Woodsters. That way you can be hands on in the system, and right the many wrongs you keep finding.

 

Seems to me you might ask your parents, friends, relatives (pick one) to help maintain the cache in Georgia ... then there would not be any problem.

 

As for sock puppets, there are many creative people on here, and they could creat a puppet account that nobody would suspect. You can't stop them unless you can tell they are one.

 

Me personally...this site will go to heck in a handbasket real fast with so many rules and regulations that are being proposed by a few who thinks there is a need.

 

The need is to use common sense, and no "amount of finds" can give that if its not there.

 

IMHO

 

lulu

Link to comment
Who cares? I do. I can't go and place a vacation cache under my own name,
That's not true at all. All you have to do is tell your reviewer that your parents know where the cache is and will maintain it as needed. I see this all the time and approve the caches. :unsure:

Yes hemlock, but I have to do that. But, I might not want my parents to mainatina it. I used that as an example. I have to go the extra mile and hope it is ok. But I can also just make a sock puppet and it will go through with no problem...

 

El Diablo...nope I'm not trying to place one....

Link to comment
Who cares? I do. I can't go and place a vacation cache under my own name,

 

 

Well it looks as if 9 out of the 10 people with an opinion on this subject (who have posted to this thread) don't feel it's a problem.

 

Let me become the 11th. I don't care

 

You seem to once again be trying to cause a mini-flame thread for your (and a few others) amusment. Please stop.

Link to comment
Who cares? I do. I can't go and place a vacation cache under my own name, but I can under a fake name.

You've answered your own question right there Woodster. You can do it by going outside the rules. I can do ANYTHING I want to, if I am willing to ignore the consequences to myself, my family, and anyone else impacted by my actions.

 

But, to ask for those things to be made legal just because I COULD do it, doesn't mean it should be changed. I gather that you have requested to place the cache ? Again, if you have the idea for a cache that you just have to have, find a Georgia cacher who can look after it. Whats the issue, getting the cache placed, or changing a policy ?

 

Sorry, but its sounding like you are the only one with a problem over the issue right now. Thats just not giving weight to your cause. There are issues that many have asked to be changed, but they haven't been. Thats managements perogative. They are footing the bill for this site. I want a seperate distinction for micro caches, instead of them showing traditional. Hasn't happened yet. seems like it would be an easy change, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. Oh well, I'm still gonna cache I guess.

 

There are things too important for me to worry about. :unsure:

Link to comment
Chaos that's fine and dandy. But what happens when you want to do something honestly, but can't. But you know you can do it by cheating? Would you? Probably not from what you said. The topic I brought up has to do with a fact that honest members can not do something. It's known and allowed for you to cheat to do it. Why not try to take measures from letting cheaters ahead and honest people behind. My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one. It definitely would not hurt the sport any. Also why should approvers even worry about vacation caches at all? It takes time away from other things as someone stated, right? Just let it go and let the cachers police it...

How is this different then anything else in life? Yea, you might be able to graduate school by cheating, but how many do? Sure, you can rob a bank and get money, but most of us go to work instead. Life is full of rules already, and you can cheat at almost all of them, but where does it get you? I guess if you cheat at geocaching or anything else, and you're ok with that, whatever. It's just like slipping an extra $100 to yourself when your the banker in Monopoly. If thats what makes you happy, fine, but when everyone else finds out, dont be surprised when they don't want to play with you anymore.

Link to comment

I've mentioned it before El Diablo and just recently thought about it again. The forums have gotten real boring lately. Good to see some people come out of the woodwork for this.

 

Hemlock...what is there to be guilty of? Rules? Well then the whole game is guilty because it's full of them!

 

Woof & lulu....ok so why do they not like sock puppets? Or why should one even have to create a sock puppet to do it? I've been around only since June and have seen many...many caches listed online where the placer had no finds....it's out there...trust me. But if I decide that I want to place a cache a couple hundred miles away that I could possibly go back to within a few weeks, but I may have no finds there, I can't place a cache. If I really...really want to place a cache there, I can and will easily under a fake name. Who knows, I may have done this 1 time, 5 times, 10 times or more already. I won't tell.

 

Harrald, why is that when one doesn't agree with every little thing that they are starting a flame thread...actuallu I think your posting is flaming me...and I don't think you have any authority to tell me what to do...

Link to comment
Three consecutive DNFs, archive it. This way, you can be sure that's it misplaced (somebody (singular) has missed our cache).

Some people hide caches so well it takes several DNF's just to actually find the darn thing.

 

I say leave the system how it is now. If you really want to go to the trouble of placing a cache on vacation by using a sock-puppet account, go ahead. DOn't complain when an admin requests that it be removed when people report maintenance problems.

Link to comment
My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one.

Now all you have to do is seal all the holes that let people claim a find they didn't actually have. I assume that will be next weeks thread.

 

Why not try to take measures from letting cheaters ahead and honest people behind.
Because I'd rather that time be spent on improving search functions instead of creating the geocaching gestapo.
Link to comment
Guilty until proven innocent. Didn't our forefathers fight for the opposite?

Much more recently, seizure laws have been enacted that allow the government to seize money or property even before an indictment has been made (the indictment "justifies" the seizure), not to mention any actual trial. The practice is also used as a tool in "enticing" people into implicating or testifying against other "targets." So much for our forefathers' intent.

 

Back on topic, this is a very tired topic, indeed. Woodsters has had much to say about it in the previous incarnations of this thread, so I question his motivation for starting this new thread. In these threads, Woodsters told us he has family and friends in the area he formerly resided. I can see no reason why he should not therefore introduce these friends and relatives to the wonders of geocaching by helping them to create their own account(s) and in placing their first cache(s.) These new members could always include Woodster's name as "co-owner" on the cache page, should his ego demand such recognition.

Link to comment

But why the problem of where you place a cache? As long as there are no maintenance problems with it. No one can forsee problems on a cache that someone places, whether they place a mile from their house or a 1000 miles.

 

Bons....well just like an approver now can check a find history (which could be fake as well), then they could check the finds of the placers there as they would be doing already anyway.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

The forums have gotten real boring lately. Good to see some people come out of the woodwork for this.

 

<<SNIP>>

 

Harrald, why is that when one doesn't agree with every little thing that they are starting a flame thread...actuallu I think your posting is flaming me...and I don't think you have any authority to tell me what to do...

I think your comment about "The forums have gotten real boring lately." is proof enough why I feel you are just trying to stir up trouble.

 

And as for having "authority" to tell you what to do. You are correct. That's why I said "Please stop". That is a polite way of asking you to not stir up trouble.

 

You have yet to show any support on this subject. All the while still arguing in circles. I ask again

 

Pretty please with sugar on top. Stop trying to cause an argument.

Link to comment

Bassoon, this has nothing to do with my family or even back home for all that matters. Back in June/July when the issue was brought up then by someone who had made an error and was trying to fix it, they were harrassed to the point that they said they would never post again. I saw a flaw in the system, I addressed it, to much others disconcern. I used the home thing then as an example as I was going home to visit for a week. It quickly got construed that I was wanting to place a cache or even intended on placing one there, when I said I wasn't. I also stated then that one could easily place one under a fake name with no problems at all. What came out of all that discussion on vacation caches? Well Jeremy stated then that it would be ok to place a cache as long as you had the land manager listed(now has been updated to others) that will maintain the cache for you. It was also mentioned that approvers would use a system of where they would look at your find history and use that in determing an allowance of a cache placement. Basically if you have cached there before, then it would be ok. Which of course is flawed as well because just becuase you were there once, doesn't mean that you will ever go back. I've been to many places all over the U.S. and out, but that doesn't mean that if I place a cache there that I would ever return. Since the discussion back in the summer, I have seen caches listed obviously by sock puppet accounts. So my theory back then does happen and probably has been happening. But the fact remains, whether important to anyone else or not, that the way it works now, that it promotes sock puppets and prohibits honest cachers. It may not be an important issue to anyone else but me. But just as others have their own issues with things here and there, I may not see them as issues. Just as bons mentioned better search functions, I don't have a problem with them, but he is entitled to his issue as am I.

Link to comment

One last try for me.

 

regarding having so many finds BEFORE being allowed to place a cache. I have seen caches by some with many finds under their belts, but the cache was no better than a cache placed by some with a few finds. My 1st cache was placed after only a few finds, but it has been complimented on by most finders. I think the majority of cachers are able to understand the spirit behind hiding a cache.

 

Cache maintenance: the biggest gripe I've seen is wet caches and broken containers. There needs to be a local who can go out within ( in my opinion ) 2 weeks TOPS to address a problem. Can you "run down to Georgia " to fix a wet cache ?

 

QUOTE:

Bons....well just like an approver now can check a find history (which could be fake as well), then they could check the finds of the placers there as they would be doing already anyway.

 

Seems to me there is enough to do already. You seem to be volunteering someone else to do a lot of work that only you seem to necessitate anyway.

 

Sorry if you don't get it. I think if you have to keep coming back to these same issues, you need a different hobby. That is only my opinion, and I'm NOT trying to tell you what to do. It just seems that you are being bothered more by the regulations and policies in this hobby than getting enjoyment from it.

Edited by Captain Chaoss
Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

The forums have gotten real boring lately. Good to see some people come out of the woodwork for this.

 

<<SNIP>>

 

Harrald, why is that when one doesn't agree with every little thing that they are starting a flame thread...actuallu I think your posting is flaming me...and I don't think you have any authority to tell me what to do...

I think your comment about "The forums have gotten real boring lately." is proof enough why I feel you are just trying to stir up trouble.

 

And as for having "authority" to tell you what to do. You are correct. That's why I said "Please stop". That is a polite way of asking you to not stir up trouble.

 

You have yet to show any support on this subject. All the while still arguing in circles. I ask again

 

Pretty please with sugar on top. Stop trying to cause an argument.

Woody trying to stir up trouble? I think you've got the wrong guy! :unsure:

 

I will not abandon my obsession again. - (Brian - Team A.I.)

Link to comment
One last try for me.

 

regarding having so many finds BEFORE being allowed to place a cache. I have seen caches by some with many finds under their belts, but the cache was no better than a cache placed by some with a few finds. My 1st cache was placed after only a few finds, but it has been complimented on by most finders. I think the majority of cachers are able to understand the spirit behind hiding a cache.

 

Cache maintenance: the biggest gripe I've seen is wet caches and broken containers. There needs to be a local who can go out within ( in my opinion ) 2 weeks TOPS to address a problem. Can you "run down to Georgia " to fix a wet cache ?

 

QUOTE:

Bons....well just like an approver now can check a find history (which could be fake as well), then they could check the finds of the placers there as they would be doing already anyway.

 

Seems to me there is enough to do already. You seem to be volunteering someone else to do a lot of work that only you seem to necessitate anyway.

 

Sorry if you don't get it. I think if you have to keep coming back to these same issues, you need a different hobby.

Bons I'm not making any more work than is already being done. I'm all for working smarter not harder. They already check find histories as has been stated. If there are none in that area, then they don't allow it. It's not more work. Or at least less work if they approve it and then I come along and say it looks like a sock puppet account and suggest it for archive. Should I do that even though the cache is half way decent? It wouldn't be a smart thing to do. I agree also that the best cacher could be the worse hider, and there is nothing you can do about that. So why even worry about vacation caches? Let them run their course, if they become problems, then restrict the people who place them.

Link to comment

LOL Sax...I don't stir up trouble...or at least don't intend to...If I see something I disagree with, I will say it. If I see that something could be better, then I will suggest it.

 

It's all in good fun. It sure the heck beats what i didn't get for christmas, what I got for christmas, what i'm praying for, and etc....and my topic is ON topic! hehehe...

 

ok so everyone has their pet peeves..mine happens to be this issue....

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...