Elitist Or Supportist?

[+Geo Ho]

Yeah, I think exclusionist is a better term.

 

Geo Ho, if you were actually being elitist (or exclusionary, I suppose), you could delete the log of the cacher that found it while not being a premium member. Right? I mean, you put your cache out for members only, and since you know he wasn't a member, then you would be justified in deleting his log.

 

Looks different that way, eh?

The finder in question says he will not log the find even after I make it a regular non-MOC. So, no need to delete it Moot point. But, thanks for the support . . . you were being supportive weren't you??

[+Cache Viking]

Wow I am an Exclusionist/Elitist for the cost of $0.08 a day. Does this title come with a Coat of Arms? I could add it to my shield.

 

I have been having so much fun with the site and the people that even with my paltry number of finds I decided support of GC was only proper, but that was my choice.

 

Anyhow, as Geo Ho says . . . Happy Caching and Stuff

[+GrizzlyJohn]

For those that don't know I am not the biggest fan of gc.com or Jeremy but I am a paid charter member

 

but with that said...

 

You can use whatever term you want, does not really matter to me. Every time you create a cache and place it in the wild you make a decision of what type of cacher you want to find it.

 

If it is off trail you are excluding those that are in wheelchairs.

 

If you hide one that is a real 5 in terrain then you are excluding those that do not pocess a special skill that you decide.

 

Of course, I am not saying anyone actually decides to excludes certain groups of people. But by setting up a cache in a particular way you are, I think, making a decision about the type of cacher you are hoping to attract to your cache.

 

I am just not seeing that as anything bad or negative. If you want to appeal to people that see some things about caching the same way you do -- then go ahead, and it kind of proves the point about not appealing to people that do not think like you if somebody females dogs you about it.

 

Enjoy and don't try to overthink any of this.

[uperdooper]

Geocaching associated with being an Elitist.........who let Michael Moore in here. 

Who is Michael Moore? Is that someone an elitist should be familiar with?

no one should be familiar with michael moore.

[+The Jester]

I find it interesting that when talking MOCs the term (or similar) "large number of cachers are excluded". Since (as far as I know) Jeremy doesn't post numbers of members, how do you know how many are excluded? And most people here have said that the MOC tag only lasts (for them) a short while, why get so upset? As GrizzlyJohn said, different types & difficulties of caches exclude different groups.

[+clearpath]

It is very interesting to read the audit logs and see who has read those cache pages ...

This is why all of my caches are MOC. Also, I have found that MOCs require less maintenance.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Yeah, I think exclusionist is a better term.

 

Geo Ho, if you were actually being elitist (or exclusionary, I suppose), you could delete the log of the cacher that found it while not being a premium member.  Right?  I mean, you put your cache out for members only, and since you know he wasn't a member, then you would be justified in deleting his log. 

 

Looks different that way, eh?

Sparky...he can't log it online if he's not a paying member, so there is no log to delete. Unless you want to tear the page out of the logbook

Oh, yeah....well, then, by golly start tearing pages!!!!!!!

[+Sparky-Watts]

Yeah, I think exclusionist is a better term.

 

Geo Ho, if you were actually being elitist (or exclusionary, I suppose), you could delete the log of the cacher that found it while not being a premium member.  Right?  I mean, you put your cache out for members only, and since you know he wasn't a member, then you would be justified in deleting his log. 

 

Looks different that way, eh?

The finder in question says he will not log the find even after I make it a regular non-MOC. So, no need to delete it Moot point. But, thanks for the support . . . you were being supportive weren't you??

Uhhh....yeah, I think I was....I dunno, my mood changes from post to post.......and stuff.

[+Gorak]

It is very interesting to read the audit logs and see who has read those cache pages ...

This is why all of my caches are MOC. Also, I have found that MOCs require less maintenance.

The audit log won't catch those who don't actually access the cache page. If you get PQ's then you don't need to read the actual cache page. I read all my cache pages in GSAK.

[+JMBella]

Yeah, I think exclusionist is a better term.

 

Geo Ho, if you were actually being elitist (or exclusionary, I suppose), you could delete the log of the cacher that found it while not being a premium member.  Right?  I mean, you put your cache out for members only, and since you know he wasn't a member, then you would be justified in deleting his log. 

 

Looks different that way, eh?

The finder in question says he will not log the find even after I make it a regular non-MOC. So, no need to delete it Moot point. But, thanks for the support . . . you were being supportive weren't you??

Ah yes, the old "protest non-log." Always a favorite of mine. You keep hiding your MOCs Cher. It's not a bad way to give a little something to those that support the site. Exclusionary, elitist... who the hell cares?! It's all geocaching. Anyone who thinks they are so above someone that they feel they have the right judge them is an elitist.

[+Blind Avocado]

Elitist

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

By that definition, I guess it is elitist. So what? that person is not part of that elite by choice. After all, if somebody as poor as me can afford 3 bones, then just about anybody can.

 

I was recently FTF on a MOC cache where the owner converted to a general cache after the FTF. He wanted the FTF to go to somebody who supports geocaching.com. That is not the reason I joined though. It does have some great features and tools, but the main reason I became a member is so I could put my tag-line under my avatar.

[+LaPaglia]

Just read the whole thread. Anyone who puts up with Mopar can do anything she wants to! AND stuff

Edited July 21, 2004 by Lapaglia

[+Team DaSH]

I'm a Premium member, but more proudly, I'm a Charter member.

This may be somewhat off topic...but I have a question about the charter vs premium member thing. When I first became a paying member of gc.com (sometime in 2002) my profile said I was a charter member. Now it says I'm a premium member. But, my membership has never lapsed. What happened?

 

As for the rest of this topic...do what you want! Who cares what anyone else thinks about you or your social status!

Edited July 21, 2004 by Team DaSH

[+roveron]

Elitist Or Supportist?

 

I think it all depends on the reason you do it. If you do it to be elitist, then it is elitist.

Otherwise it's supportist. Others can define what you do as they wish, but it doesn't make it so.

[thorin]

Just a correction, it comes out to $.08 a day, rounded down.

Wish my electric bill was .08 cents a day ... or any of my bills for that matter. Groundspeak is by far the least expensive bill (per day) that I have. You should see my wife's Starbucks expenses!

You missed his point. It's NOT .08 cents a day it's $0.08 (ie: 8 cents) a day.

 

Thorin

[+Geo Ho]

Just a correction, it comes out to $.08 a day, rounded down.

Wish my electric bill was .08 cents a day ... or any of my bills for that matter. Groundspeak is by far the least expensive bill (per day) that I have. You should see my wife's Starbucks expenses!

You missed his point. It's NOT .08 cents a day it's $0.08 (ie: 8 cents) a day.

 

Thorin

Semantics suck.

[4x4van]

Anyone who thinks they are so above someone that they feel they have the right judge them is an elitist.

In a sense, isn't that exactly what an MOC does?

[+Team Perks]

Anyone who thinks they are so above someone that they feel they have the right judge them is an elitist.

In a sense, isn't that exactly what an MOC does?

Sorry, I just don't make the connection between placing a MOC and judging non-subscribers.

 

I have 4 MOC's. They are MOC's simply because they are very high-maintenance caches and I want to limit the number of visitors they get. If I didn't think non-subscribers were worthy of finding my caches, why would I have placed 56 other caches that they could find?

[+JMBella]

Anyone who thinks they are so above someone that they feel they have the right judge them is an elitist.

In a sense, isn't that exactly what an MOC does?

It depends. If someone hides a MOC because they believe that non members are more likely to trash a cache then yes, that certainly is judgmental. If someone hides one because they want to give a little token of appreciation to those that support the site then, Nobody is judging anyone.

[+PandyBat]

If I pay for a feature, I should use it. It's like buying a new car......just because you didn't pay for it, doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't drive it.

[CoyoteRed]

...doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't drive it.

It's not that you use it. It is how you use it.

[+PandyBat]

...doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't drive it.

It's not that you use it. It is how you use it.

True.....but that still doesn't give anyone the right to tell me how to use it or when or where or whatever.......

 

until I break a law with it.

 

Last time I checked, making caches MOCs wasn't breaking a law. It's a priviledge and we pay for it. I'll probably never make a cache of mine an MOC but it's there if I ever need to, no matter what the reason for doing so. It's also available to anyone else that pays for it, no matter the reason for doing so.

[CoyoteRed]

until I break a law with it.

...or cut someone off, or act like an a** like finding another person who is going slow on the interstate and you do a rolling roadblock with them backing up traffic. Or doing 10 under in the left lane. Or a whole host of things I bet you would be cussing the other driver for. Surely, not breaking the law, but certainly not being a good citizen.

 

There are valid reasons for placing a MOC. There are also reasons that make you less of a good geocaching citizen in the eyes of others.

[+PandyBat]

There are valid reasons for placing a MOC. There are also reasons that make you less of a good geocaching citizen in the eyes of others.

True again...but I don't see how placing an MOC makes one a bad geocaching citizen. It's just another version of how the game is played. Somebody must have discussed and voted on bringing MOC caches into the game, right?

 

Geocaching isn't the old grassroots game it used to be, no matter how much people want to think it is or want to keep it that way. It's evolving, just like nearly everything else in this world.

[Pantalaimon]

You missed his point. It's NOT .08 cents a day it's $0.08 (ie: 8 cents) a day.

Actually, I think you might have missed his point too.

[thorin]

You missed his point. It's NOT .08 cents a day it's $0.08 (ie: 8 cents) a day.

Actually, I think you might have missed his point too.

Might have but didn't.....thanks though.

 

Thorin

[Pantalaimon]

Might have but didn't.....thanks though.

 

Thorin

You're welcome.

 

Hmmm... wait a minute, I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but I'll bite.

 

WAY OT

 

It seems to me that Jeremy's post was correcting the figure right above it (i.e. $.82), where the author of such post meant to write $.08, as Jeremy noted.

 

Jeremy didn't seem to be correcting any reference to .08 cents, which admittedly, as you noted, was incorrect.

 

Just my .02 cents.

 

Pan

[+greengolftee87]

There are valid reasons for placing a MOC.  There are also reasons that make you less of a good geocaching citizen in the eyes of others.

True again...but I don't see how placing an MOC makes one a bad geocaching citizen. It's just another version of how the game is played. Somebody must have discussed and voted on bringing MOC caches into the game, right?

 

Geocaching isn't the old grassroots game it used to be, no matter how much people want to think it is or want to keep it that way. It's evolving, just like nearly everything else in this world.

Another version of how the game is played is right. setting up a MOC doesnt stop anyone from finding it, just from logging it online. Before i became a premium member there was only one MOC near me but as soon as i figured out the coords it went public, but i know i could have found it.

[CoyoteRed]

It's just another version of how the game is played.

The pirates thought their game play was just another way to play the game, too. Some people think logging finds on cache they've not found is just another way of how the games is played, too.

 

Look, I can go on and on with examples like that. Just because one group thinks it's okay does not mean everyone is going to like it.

 

How can you not see being exclusionary will adversely effect some members of our community? Especially with this kind of test?

 

Somebody must have discussed and voted on bringing MOC caches into the game, right?

You're kidding, right?

 

I can just see someone saying, "I vote that there be caches where you have to have paid Irish in order to find." Yeah, right.

[+welch]

Geocaching associated with being an Elitist.........who let Michael Moore in here. 

Who is Michael Moore? Is that someone an elitist should be familiar with?

I don't know if an elitiest would be familar with him or not, but hes the guy that makes those love/hate documentries. Like Bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 911.

You mean fiction and fact twisting

Thats just want they keep calling them on TV, if they are or not has nothing to do with MOCs... does it?

[+paintfiction]

Let me preface my reply to let everyone know I have not read the entire thread so my apologies if I am repeating everyone else.

 

I place many of my hides as subscriber only and generally leave them that way. Why? Because I want to support Groundspeak. I want Jeremy to become stinking rich from geocaching - again why? So all the whining and complaining won't burn them out so much that they pull the plug! A fat paycheck is good insurance against burn out. Anyone who is too dang cheap to kick out $30 per year to support Groundspeak has no room to complain about having to miss a few caches. Personally, I think Jeremy is VERY generous in what you get as a non-supporting member.

 

Jim

[+The Commissar!]

Wow...somebody call my mom! I have "made it!" I'm elite and exclusionist because I am not JUST a Premium Member but a Charter Member! And I make some of the Geocaching commoners who won't/don't/can't pony up some green, less than happy with me because I hide members only caches!

 

Did I mention that I gave a non-member all the cache info for my newest MOC who has not paid just the other day, for FREE! I hope he is FTF! Oops, I hope they don't kick me out for that...

[4x4van]

While I can see that some think there are legitimate reasons for placing an MOC, most of those reasons are shaky, at best, and could be better addressed in other ways.

 

-For example, times of maggot infestation or pirates: Pirates thought nothing of paying $3, and muggles don't get coordinates online anyway. Pirtes/maggots/muggles don't want to work hard, so a better solution would be better/tougher hides. If one of my caches goes missing, I don't assume that it's because of a "cheap" geocacher, I more likely assume it was found by a muggle and try to set a better hide next time. And if I was a cache pirate, I'd pay the $3 so that I could specifically target MOCs simply because of their exclusivity.

 

-Limiting the traffic: As someone previously said, isn't the point of hiding a cache for people to find it? If you want to limit the traffic, again, better/tougher hides seems a better way to do it. A cache that requires a 5 mile hike isn't going to get anywhere near the traffic as a cache in a city park.

 

-Give back to those that support the site: I feel that hiding caches supports the site. After all, if it wasn't for caches, how long do you think the site would exist? Plus I've purchased items through sites linked to Geocaching.com, including offroute.com, which kicks back a part of that to the site.

 

-Allow certain cachers to get FTF honors/prizes: So why not e-mail them the coordinates before the cache is listed/approved? To me, a FTF only means something if everyone had the same shot at it. Are they really "first" if no one else even knew about it?

 

Again, the way it is set up now, you have the right to place MOCs, so you're doing nothing wrong. But doing nothing wrong isn't necessarily doing something right, either.

[+paintfiction]

Elitist. If you wanna support gc.com then become a "premium member". Making members only caches doesn't encourage other people to become premium members (both personal opinion and from what I've read around the forums). Actually it likely has the exact opposite effect since the vast majority of people don't like being part of elitist groups.

 

Thorin

OK... now I'm reading the entire thread.

 

Yes, placing MOCs does encourage people to buy memberships. I know of 3 users who bought memberships to find and log MOCs. Add in some statistical crap here and you will know that if I *KNOW* personally of 3 - there must be much more than that out there.

 

UPDATE: Make that 4 cachers since I have met MonkeyBrad.

Edited July 22, 2004 by paintfiction

[+fly46]

As far as I can tell it only excludes those who choose to exclude themselves. And in all honesty, I cannot figure out why we would take the time to listen to folks who are mad because we decided to exclude them from something that they have chosen to not be a part of.

 

Just like those brownies, some people hate brownies, but they are mad that I don't offer them my really good ones. Of course, why are people who do not like brownies, standing in the brownie line?

Here Here!

 

 

Personally, I'm not a member. (I'm unemployed and the visa bill comes first.) I don't mind members only caches.

 

As for you being an 'eliteist' - I think that anyone making a cache Members only for the sheer point of letting the first week be MO first finders is one of the best reasons I've heard for a MO cache.

Muggling doesn't happen by seeing or not seeing the cache cords listed. Good trades won't always happen if you're a member (ever hear the term more money than brains?), but rewarding members for their support to the site is a good reason for a MO cache.

 

I just don't like it when the MO caches stay MO forever.

[4x4van]

 

Yes, placing MOCs does encourage people to buy memberships. I know of 3 users who bought memberships to find and log MOCs. Add in some statistical crap here and you will know that if I *KNOW* personally of 3 - there must be much more than that out there.

 

UPDATE: Make that 4 cachers since I have met MonkeyBrad.

It goes both ways. MOCs are one of the reasons that I have not become a Premium member. Add in some statistical crap here and you will know that if there's one (me) out there that feels that way, there must be more.

[+Gorak]

Commercial Caches / Caches that Solicit

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing.  These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas may not be listed. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.

IMHO, it seems to me that MOC’s violate the above cache placement guideline by requiring the finder to have first purchased a product (a membership) from a private commercial enterprise (Groundspeak). Of course, it can be justified by the last paragraph stating that, in rare cases (or in this case, not so rare), permission will be given. GC has obviously given themselves permission to solicit memberships via MOC’s.

 

I could rant about the inevitable mass commercialization of geocaching that I feel is coming, but that would be off topic and probably deserves a thread of its own...

[+JeePSer]

please forgive for my OT observations:

 

I find it interesting that when issues are brought up in the forum that the majority don't agree with the minority constantly reminds up that it's only a game....lighten up. But when the minority disagrees the majority is expected to sit back and listen while they drone on about how unfair and wrong it all is.

 

If you don't want to part with any of your hard earned money to become a premium member there are certain things that you will not be able to be a part of. Get over it!

 

The fact that I choose to do something that excludes others doesn't give a small but easily offended segment of the excluded the right to whine and complain endlessly about how mean I am to leave them out.

 

It's only a game......lighten up.

[+Cow Spots]

Let's take my home state of Arizona.

 

Total active caches : 2553

Total active members-only caches : 8

 

Percentage of caches you can't do if you're not a member : 0.31 %

 

Doesn't seem like any big loss.

 

And I'm sure that this has been beaten to death, but don't you spend far more on gasoline each month while geocaching than 3 measly bucks?

 

--Dave, The Cow Spots

[+welch]

please forgive for my OT observations:

 

I find it interesting that when issues are brought up in the forum that the majority don't agree with the minority constantly reminds up that it's only a game....lighten up. But when the minority disagrees the majority is expected to sit back and listen while they drone on about how unfair and wrong it all is.

 

Still going off topic, but isn't that the same??

I mean to have a 'minority' and a 'majority' there has to be some disagreement.

[+fly46]

Geocaching associated with being an Elitist.........who let Michael Moore in here. 

Who is Michael Moore? Is that someone an elitist should be familiar with?

no one should be familiar with michael moore.

<---- likes Michael Moore..

[+JeePSer]

please forgive for my OT observations:

 

I find it interesting that when issues are brought up in the forum that the majority don't agree with the minority constantly reminds up that it's only a game....lighten up. But when the minority disagrees the majority is expected to sit back and listen while they drone on about how unfair and wrong it all is.

 

Still going off topic, but isn't that the same??

I mean to have a 'minority' and a 'majority' there has to be some disagreement.

Your right.

 

I guess the point that I was trying to make is that there are a few people wandering around the forums that want to remind people that in the whole scheme of things our geocaching problems are very minor compared to say world hunger. This is of course very true, but when they have a disagreement they seem to forget that being excluded from the opportunity to find an MOC (as an example) is pretty minor. Everything is all fun and games until their perceived geo-rights have been trampled.

 

Using The Cow Spots' example in the big picture that mean if you don't pony up you're excluded from the chance to find less than 1/3 of a percent of all caches. And on top of that, I believe that most MOC are only kept that way for a short time. So what's the big deal. If you don't want to pay....don't. But don't start trying to label those that do and want to place an MOC.

 

If Geo Ho or anybody else wants to place an MOC go right ahead. The reasons for doing it are as different as the individuals doing it. And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find when the cache is made public, that's cool too. (Although I don't see the point in that) But when we start trying to label somebody who doesn't agree completely with our geocaching practices things begin to get a bit out of hand.

 

(edited for clarification )

Edited July 22, 2004 by JeePSer

[+Cow Spots]

And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find that's cool too.

I'd love to see a non-member who goes out and locates a Members-Only cache to be able to log in and post a find! You can't even get to the webpage!

 

--Dave, The Cow Spots

[+welch]

I guess the point that I was trying to make is that there are a few people wandering around the forums that want to remind people that in the whole scheme of things our geocaching problems are very minor compared to say world hunger. This is of course very true, but when they have a disagreement they seem to forget that being excluded from the opportunity to find an MOC (as an example) is pretty minor. Everything is all fun and games until their perceived geo-rights have been trampled.

 

Ok, now I see what your saying.

 

Using The Cow Spots' example in the big picture that mean if you don't pony up you're excluded from the chance to find less than 1/3 of a percent of all caches. And on top of that, I believe that most MOC are only kept that way for a short time. So what's the big deal. If you don't want to pay....don't. But don't start trying to label those that do and want to place an MOC.

 

If Geo Ho or anybody else wants to place an MOC go right ahead. The reasons for doing it are as different as the individuals doing it. And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find when the cache is made public, that's cool too. (Although I don't see the point in that) But when we start trying to label somebody who doesn't agree completely with our geocaching practices things begin to get a bit out of hand.

Well, not that I want people to drone on and and on, but when someone asks what the name of the label is. Someone will give them an opinion...

Disargreement is ok, bad behavior is not. Geo Ho asked if she was supportist or elitist, I replied with with I thought, thats not out of hand is it?

[+JeePSer]

Disargreement is ok, bad behavior is not. Geo Ho asked if she was supportist or elitist, I replied with with I thought, thats not out of hand is it?

IMHO.......No.

[thorin]

Might have but didn't.....thanks though.

 

Thorin

You're welcome.

 

Hmmm... wait a minute, I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but I'll bite.

 

WAY OT

 

It seems to me that Jeremy's post was correcting the figure right above it (i.e. $.82), where the author of such post meant to write $.08, as Jeremy noted.

 

Jeremy didn't seem to be correcting any reference to .08 cents, which admittedly, as you noted, was incorrect.

 

Just my .02 cents.

 

Pan

Wow was he really commenting on the rounding? I never woulda noticed if he hadn't said "round down"

 

Note he did notate his correction properly as $.08 not .08 cents as the person did whom I was correcting..

 

Again thanks for coming out and contributing your two hundredths of a cent, it's been a blast.

 

Edit: On Topic -- I do agree that perhaps "exclusionist" is a much better term then "elitist".

 

Thorin

Edited July 22, 2004 by thorin

[+JeePSer]

Might have but didn't.....thanks though.

 

Thorin

You're welcome.

 

Hmmm... wait a minute, I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but I'll bite.

 

WAY OT

 

It seems to me that Jeremy's post was correcting the figure right above it (i.e. $.82), where the author of such post meant to write $.08, as Jeremy noted.

 

Jeremy didn't seem to be correcting any reference to .08 cents, which admittedly, as you noted, was incorrect.

 

Just my .02 cents.

 

Pan

Wow was he really commenting on the rounding? I never woulda noticed if he hadn't said "round down"

 

Note he did notate his correction properly as $.08 not .08 cents as the person did whom I was correcting..

 

Again thanks for coming out and contributing your two tenths of a cent, it's been a blast.

 

Edit: On Topic -- I do agree that perhaps "exclusionist" is a much better term then "elitist".

 

Thorin

I think we're splitting hairs here.

 

And by the way .02 cents is two hundreths of a cent and .2 cents two tenths of a cent.

[thorin]

dadgum you got me.......

Edited July 22, 2004 by thorin

[+Renegade Knight]

And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find that's cool too.

I'd love to see a non-member who goes out and locates a Members-Only cache to be able to log in and post a find! You can't even get to the webpage!

 

--Dave, The Cow Spots

Something like 40-50% here don't log online. For them there would be no change in their logging practice. Just the extra challenge of finding a cache that is MOC.

[4x4van]

I find it interesting that when issues are brought up in the forum that the majority don't agree with the minority constantly reminds up that it's only a game....lighten up. But when the minority disagrees the majority is expected to sit back and listen while they drone on about how unfair and wrong it all is.

 

If you don't want to part with any of your hard earned money to become a premium member there are certain things that you will not be able to be a part of. Get over it!

 

The fact that I choose to do something that excludes others doesn't give a small but easily offended segment of the excluded the right to whine and complain endlessly about how mean I am to leave them out.

 

It's only a game......lighten up.

Who's droning? Are the only opinions that are valid those that agree with yours? Or is my opinion less valid because I'm not a PM?

 

I'm not easily offended (as you suggest), but I do take exception to being looked at as less of a cacher (less supportive, less likely to trade fair, less likely to respect caches, less...) simply because I choose not to become a premium member. Seems to me that it is some PMs who are easily offended when anyone questions their reasons for placing MOCs.

 

If I remember correctly, a cacher asked for opinions on this subject. I don't consider the resulting posts droning, whining, or endless complaining, but rather a pretty well-represented spectrum of opinions, without a huge majority or minority either way. While I still believe that MOCs go against the spirit of the game, reading these forums has made me understand why some feel the need to place them, even if I disagree with that method of accomplishing an end. But what do I know, I'm a cheapskate, plundering, low-character non-PM!