Denied Virtuals

[+fizzymagic]

I have nothing but respect for you, mtn-man. I did not mean to imply that you were brainless; only that approvers are required to enforce Groundspeak rules, but are not required to agree with them.

Edited May 30, 2004 by fizzymagic

[+mtn-man]

I guess I didn't express myself too well.

Ya' think?

 

The damage is done. Deal with your problem.

You now have an unmaintained cache placed while traveling to deal with.

 

[kablooey]

I have three virtual caches that were created while traveling. They were created before the guidelines changed. They are all in areas where a traditional cache cannot be placed.

No disrespect intended, but I'm pretty sure that the virtual you created that is local to me could easily have hidden a traditional. Not that most people don't consider it a cool virtual.

[+WalkinJake]

approvers are required to enforce Groundspeak rules, but are not required to agree with them.

I think mtn-man is getting vindictive here. Fizzymagic was making a point. When rules are instituted without regard to real-life scenarios, illogical results ensue.

 

There is an old saying, something like: "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

It seems I have started a snowball here, and that was not my intent. I was simply stating my displeasure with the illogical rules placed arbitrarily on virtual caches. In my opinion, increased numbers of caches, whether physical or virtual, is good for the game. It increases interest, enthusiasm, and support. Some, it seems, want to make Geocaching a sport wherein they can claim more "finds" than the next guy. So what? Who cares? I partake in the game to broaden my enjoyment of my world and my environment, and I utilize caches (both real and virtual) to do so. I think others do, as well.

 

When you get right down to it, all of us have enough problems in the real world. We certainly do not need to create more conflict here. Let's enjoy the game, but remember.....it's only a game.

 

--WalkinJake

[+mtn-man]

No disrespect taken.

 

It was created before that guideline was in place, so it is grandfathered of course. If someone can get permission from the City of San Francisco to have a cache there I might consider archiving the cache. One person tried but could not get permission. Honestly, at this point I am so upset I would lean toward the side of leaving it as is since it was in place before the guidelines were changed. So many people complain about not being able to create virtual caches. Why should I archive one of mine that was legally placed? I've never said that I didn't like them. I do them all the time and own several. I just uphold the guidelines like the brainless person that I am.

[+mtn-man]

I think mtn-man is getting vindictive here.  Fizzymagic was making a point. 

Actions in life have consequences. Fizzy has said bad things about the cache reviewers in the past. Unfortunately he has deleted almost all of his posts here so you cannot see all of what he said. I have continued to watch his cache despite all of the past statements. He decided to insult me personally tonight and in good conscience I could no longer do the work for him on his cache. It didn't have to be said that way. It was uncalled for and frankly it is against forum guidelines.

 

None of this was your fault WalkinJake.

 

You are free to have your opinions regarding the virtual cache guidelines. Yep, it is a game. I look at it that way myself. I wish more people did.

[+Renegade Knight]

...approvers are required to enforce Groundspeak rules, but are not required to agree with them.

Very true, and many don't agree with all the guidelines. However they do enforce them. Hopefully they don't defend the ones they don't agree with though.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Walkin Jake, don't you think its about time to close this one?

 

It seems to have gone a little awry.

 

By you closing it the admins can save face.

[uperdooper]

the admins don't need to save face. they haven't done anything wrong. the thread should be closed though.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I meant they would not come off looking like they are the "bad guys" for closing it down.

[uperdooper]

I meant they would not come off looking like they are the "bad guys" for closing it down.

now that makes sense.

[+cacheKidds]

My uncle does archaeloogy work at Moundville and I know another guy that works there too. I thought about putting a cache there but I chose not to jump through the hoops of both the Bama State Parks and the UA to get permission. I think if somebody just stuck one out there, bad luck would soon come to you. I took four pictures of the park for the CCC locationless if anybody wants to see. There's a link for the park too.

Edited May 30, 2004 by cacheKidds

[+jeff35080]

I think if somebody just stuck one out there, bad luck would soon come to you.

 

I agree and wouldn't just put one there, but you could use the benchmark and other items at the park as part of an indian themed multicache.

[+WalkinJake]

If I knew how to close this thread, I would! Somebody help me...........