Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

B)B)B):cool:

Jeremy , your lack of awareness to your customer's needs will be the eventual end to GC.com. in my opinion. Rather than attend to your customers concerns you defend Prime Aprrover. You call some of our wants " just filler". You negate our opinions. You do not have an ear to your customer's voices.

 

Bottom Line::::: If a company cannot make their customers happy, then they will leave and take their business elsewhere. Your apparent lack of sincerity in your previous posts is obvious to me. I am becomng very unhappy. This is my first post here and I am not a complainer, just a concerned geocacher.

 

There have been rumors of logs mentioning other sites being deleted. What is this Russia? Can we not sepak our minds? Why does Big Brother feel the need to repress the little ones??? This is very concening to me!!!

Dan

Link to comment

CarleenP said:

I wrote a reviewer note explaining how I could not get the cache over .1 mile away and how the nature of the trial prevented confusion. It got listed.

That would be nice! I sent the approver a message explaining why being forced to move my cache 100 ft. cheapened the final location considerably, since the target audience for my cache was much different than his, and the place I wanted to send them would be enjoyable for families. However, it was responded to with regret that there was nothing he could do about. Now, there is something I can do about it, which is list the cache on a site that understands the difference between guidelines and rules.

 

Again, I am hoping that GC.com learns from the discontent, and figures out a way to improve. With a few exceptions, I have had no problems, other than some issues with the way certain types of caches (multis, puzzles) are approved/not approved. I am guessing that the local approver is quite busy with the volunteer work, because he has two caches that have been disabled for maintenance for quite some time(one for a year and a half). I am glad that the Montana caching community is providing that much work for him, and he is able to keep up with the demand.

Link to comment
There have been rumors of logs mentioning other sites being deleted. What is this Russia? Can we not sepak our minds? Why does Big Brother feel the need to repress the little ones??? This is very concening to me!!!

Dan

I'm assuming that if you owned a business, you'd let the competition put up signs in your lobby?

 

sd

Link to comment
There have been rumors of logs mentioning other sites being deleted. What is this Russia?  Can we not sepak our minds?  Why does Big Brother feel the need to repress the little ones???  This is very concening to me!!!

Dan

I'm assuming that if you owned a business, you'd let the competition put up signs in your lobby?

 

sd

I just hate having to pass AMD signs in the Intel lobby :cool:

 

Usually when I don't like a particular business, I go somewhere else rather than hang out at the counter until they hire the "right" employee to serve me.

Link to comment
If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!
In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? B)

There are major difference between the laws of the land and the listing guidelines of this site. Let's not try to insinuate they the one and the same.

I think you're missing the point, but I'm not surprised by that. :cool:

 

GC.com's guidelines are more strict than the laws made my the government (local, state, federal, etc). Is that wrong? Absolutely not. That's how this particular business chooses to run. This business is rather successful at it too.

Is is wrong to have the guidelines equal to the goverment's laws? Absolutely not. That's just not how this particular business is run.

 

If you want your cache listed on this site, you must follow the guidelines for this site. If you want you cache listed elsewhere, you must follow the guidelines of that particular site

Link to comment
QUOTE (Essiar @ Dec 16 2004, 08:32 AM)

QUOTE 

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

 

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple! 

 

In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine?

No Smerf, it means follow the state and federal and county laws and you'll be fine, it doesn't mean follow Jeremy and PA's laws.

Link to comment

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!

In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :cool:

Nope, I don't think it will be like that. What I expect will happen is that instead of making a bunch of rules to try to cover every lame, boneheaded, or outright harmful thing a person might try to do, rules that often inconvenience people who are really mostly trying to do the right thing, there will be incentives for folks to hide good caches, and disincentives for hiding bad ones. In very, very extreme (and I'd think quite rare) cases, I imagine troublemakers will simply be ejected.

 

This site uses "the stick" to enforce good behavior. (Follow the guidelines or no approval.) The other site uses "the carrot". (Hide a good cache, you get positive feedback, hide a cache that sucks, you get negative feedback.) Which way will work out better in practice remains to be seen. I hope the other site's mechanisms will yield a fun and civil environment for caching. I've felt the value system for caching behavior here has been totally broken for quite some time. (Please don't take this as a slam against gc.com - I'm not saying it's totally broken, or that all the caches here are bad, this is a more subtle point than that. Easy, fast finds are favored in the rules over challenging finds, and rules are used to disallow abuses of the system - that's all I'm saying. )

 

Ask yourself this - why, despite all the new rules passed on this site, does the debate over easily placed, very low maintenance caches, continue? It started with virtuals, and then moved on to floods of micro caches. I believe the root cause of the problem has never been addressed. My assertion is that the no rule that is created here to stop it can possibly succeed because the system itself (when coupled with human nature) is setup to encourage precisely this type of behavior.

 

Another, equally valid but less controversial question is "why don't people like to find multi's?" Oh sure, some folks like them - but the numbers don't lie. Compare the number of finds on the average multi to a traditional in the same area, and the traditional usually gets far more finds. So when approvers suggest a series of traditonals be forced into a multi, is it really a surprise folks get riled up about it? The hider will get a fraction of the feedback (I FOUND it! emails) from the multi, both because fewer will seek it, and because he'd have gotten the feedback from each stage in a series of traditionals. Hiders are often in it for those emails - at least that's what I've seen.

 

Or why is it that some of the really great caches are rarely visited at all? If you put a couple of miles of hike on a cache, even if those two miles are through a slice of heaven on earth itself, you are pretty well assured to get at best a quarter of the finds on the cache in the Wal-mart parking lot. (No disrespect to these types of caches either - they can be good too.)

 

These things have been discussed at length, and I'm not trying to reopen those debates. My point is that the guys at the other site are actively trying to do something about these problems in a novel way. We'll see whether or not it works out, but they are at least attempting it. Their ideas on this almost *exactly* mirrored my thinking on it, so how could I not join up?

 

Again, none of this is intended as a slam of this site. It does a great many things well, that's obvious. Perhaps the other site will have unforseen problems that end up being worse than the ones we debate over here. Maybe it will turn out better, or merely different. Time will tell.

Link to comment

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!

You mean there are RULES? Now I'm confused :cool: .

Link to comment
If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!
In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :cool:

There are major difference between the laws of the land and the listing guidelines of this site. Let's not try to insinuate they the one and the same.

Since RR stationss and airport terminals aren't actually illegal then we're good to go there though?

Link to comment

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!

You mean there are RULES? Now I'm confused :cool: .

Of course there are rules. There are even approvers - they are the folks who sponsor you. Mostly I think this will work out to be a check to make sure the hider didn't just make a silly mistake. (Uh, hey, why are the coords in the middle of the freeway??? Oops!) However, if your sponsors think your cache is illegal, no way are they going to approve it. (And it takes two to approve the cache.) So it's not anarchy - but it's not a centralized government, either. Caches that aren't illegal, but merely problems, will get negative feedback - it will not be in someone's best interests to maintain such a cache. Moreover, even if that person is an irresponsible fool who doesn't care - it can cause problems for the guy who sponsored him, who will hopefully decide - "Hey, enough already, fix the problems with the dang cache!"

Link to comment
If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!
In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :cool:

There are major difference between the laws of the land and the listing guidelines of this site. Let's not try to insinuate they the one and the same.

Since RR stationss and airport terminals aren't actually illegal then we're good to go there though?

Really? I'd like to see the reaction of the fine folks who run those places.

 

In fact, if by chance you can get someone with sufficient authority to allow you place a cache in one of those places, don't you think you should be able to?

Link to comment
I'm just wondering how many of the people who have grievances AND are involved in this discussion are also Premium Members?

 

If you want to know why I'm pondering this question, look at this thread.

I am a premium member and every name I recognize in this forum from TX is a premium member. I believe it is those that are the MOST caring of gc.com that are bitching the loudest. They love it and want it to be the best it can be. If we didn't care we wouldn't be here posting.

Link to comment
If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!
In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :cool:

There are major difference between the laws of the land and the listing guidelines of this site. Let's not try to insinuate they the one and the same.

I think you're missing the point, but I'm not surprised by that.

 

GC.com's guidelines are more strict than the laws made my the government (local, state, federal, etc). Is that wrong?

Actually, I didn't miss your point, but you've missed mine.

 

What could consitute a perfectly safe, legal, and ethical cache is different than what can be listed on gc.com. The two don't jive.

 

That's my point.

 

Yours seems to be if it can't be listed on gc.com then it shouldn't exist. Am I wrong?

 

Or is your point every site is going ot have some form of guidelines? Yes, of course, but don't insinuate they are going to be any more or less strict than gc.com thus question the point of going over there. The point is you have more freedom to do what you feel is right.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

I am a premium member, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. Even non-paying members are contributors to the sport and this site.

 

Bad word-of-mouth from a non-paying member can be just as damaging as from a paying member and good idea is just as good from a non-paying member as from a paying member. That elitist premium vs free mentality serves no purpose in this discussion.

Link to comment

Since RR stationss and airport terminals aren't actually illegal then we're good to go there though?

If you can get permission from either of those places, absolutely you could place a cache there. Keep in mind that if it's a nuisance it will get negative feedback and since that site rewards you on quality and does the opposite for bad caches, you are not motivated to place problem caches. The "other" site is not for everyone and I understand that. People that like tossing a film can under every bush or a key holder on every guard rail will not appreciate this type of site. Nor will smiley hounds that couldn't care less about the quality of a cache and are only interested in boosting their ego by a high smiley count. Therefore, both sites will have their fans. Both will meet different types of needs.

Link to comment

The more I see from "most' of the flaps, is that cache submitters are ticked because "their' cache did not meet the guidelines. So they are going over the top to complain. Whining because the approval process does not allow for their special exception.

 

Makes no sense to me to ask Geocaching.com/Groundspeak to change well established guidelines.

 

Course the other choice is to leave Geocaching.com/Groundspeak and take your ball to play elsewhere.

 

I hope that the powers that be at Geocaching.com/Groundspeak dont bend to the anarchist disgruntled few who do not want to play by the rules.

Link to comment
...anarchist disgruntled few who do not want to play by the rules.

But what are the rules of geocaching? What are the rules of geocaching.com?

 

See? There is a difference.

 

It has been stated time and time again that TPTB can run their site any way they wish. This is true.

 

It has been strongly implied by the gc.com supporters if you go somewhere you want to cache without rules.

 

If you follow those two to their logical conclusion you would have one person controling the whole of geocaching. One man.

 

I guess the "anarchist" don't want that to happen.

 

I guess if you simply follow The Code then you're just not a good geocaching citizen.

 

Yes, I had an ulterior motive in seeing The Code developed--to dispell the notion that if you are caching on a different site then you must be "rogue."

Link to comment
The more I see from "most' of the flaps, is that cache submitters are ticked because "their' cache did not meet the guidelines. So they are going over the top to complain. Whining because the approval process does not allow for their special exception.

 

Makes no sense to me to ask Geocaching.com/Groundspeak to change well established guidelines.

 

Course the other choice is to leave Geocaching.com/Groundspeak and take your ball to play elsewhere.

 

I hope that the powers that be at Geocaching.com/Groundspeak dont bend to the anarchist disgruntled few who do not want to play by the rules.

Yeah, never question, always follow. If they are written rules they must be right. Thank god Sam Adams, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mendela, MLK and countless others didn't follow your brilliant epistemology. Like I said before, Good luck with that attitude it should server you well in life. Hey better watch out the heard of sheep is leaving don't want to get stuck with no one to blindly follow.

 

Keep those posts coming, they are pretty fun to read when I need a good laugh.

Link to comment

This may be off topic, and honestly I do not have a dog in most of these fights but I do have a point to raise that I have raised before.

 

The rules or guidelines or whatever you want to call them all exist for a reason, they were created as a direct response to an incident of some sort. While it is nice to be idealistic and say that your way of caching will only have common sense guides and will be less restrictive, it is unrealistic. You will start the same way this site did and then you will have to react and respond to real world concerns and it will be necessary to enact some guidelines, before long you have become what you have mocked. This website wants as many caches approved a possible, but it must proceed in a responsible manner. The volunteer cache reviewers approach caches with the intent to approve them if they are compliant with the guidelines that this site has found it necessary to enact. Sure a couple of them let their opinions influence their judgement, but they are human and volunteers.

 

Nearly every time that someone comes here complaining that their cache was not approved it turns out that they had violated the posted guidelines in some way. I know that the only cache I ahve ever had denied for approval, should have been. I was trying to skirt a rule and challenge some language, but I knew what I was doing, and did not get angry when they did not let me get away with it. In other cases I have been able to get special permission from Groundspeak for caches that did not necessarily follow the letter of the guideline, but who fell clearly inside of the spirit of the guideline.

 

I have dealt with many of the reviewers and with others in the organization and have always been treated fairly. Like most of the rest of life, if you begin your discussion with respect and honesty, you will often end it the same way. I realize that many of you "know" what is wrong with this site and how to fix it, but try to look at the big picture. Groundspeak is not trying to be oppressive, they have worked hard as stewards of this sport we all love, but in the real world that we are forced to live in you have to place some constraints. Trust me there are many among our ranks who would hide a cache on the railroad tracks full of knives and porn, near a school. It has happened before, that is why we now have guidelines to stop that sort of thing. Just try to remember that for every guideline that we have now, there was an incident that made it necessary. It happened here and it will happen in your world too.

Link to comment
Yeah, never question, always follow. If they are written rules they must be right. Thank god Sam Adams, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mendela, MLK and countless others didn't follow your brilliant epistemology. Like I said before, Good luck with that attitude it should server you well in life. Hey better watch out the heard of sheep is leaving don't want to get stuck with no one to blindly follow.

 

 

Ya dont need to follow.. all ya need to do is find a tactful instead of whiney way of presenting a grievance. There is a grievance process in place. Appears some just did not bother to use it.

 

Even the approver in question over this flap said he left for reasons other than the guidelines/rules.

Link to comment
Snip

 

Nearly every time that someone comes here complaining that their cache was not approved it turns out that they had violated the posted guidelines in some way. 

 

Snip

Yep.. the original anarchist complainer's cache posting was directed inappropriately to calling an approver names. Could not make out just exactly what the title was since it was deleted. In the body of the description name calling just was inappropriate and should not have been approved.

Link to comment

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!

In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :cool:

Nope, I don't think it will be like that. What I expect will happen is that instead of making a bunch of rules to try to cover every lame, boneheaded, or outright harmful thing a person might try to do, rules that often inconvenience people who are really mostly trying to do the right thing, there will be incentives for folks to hide good caches, and disincentives for hiding bad ones. In very, very extreme (and I'd think quite rare) cases, I imagine troublemakers will simply be ejected.

Actually, they go to jail and pay big fines and court costs.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...ab-42a1f12066bf

The sentence was then read. It goes as follows: 1 year jail time, 1 year on probation to stay out of any kind of trouble, 1 year license suspension in the state of California, and to pay all the expenses incurred for the bomb squad, the railroad having to change 2 crews out because of a 4 1/2 hour detainment and closing down of Hwy. 97. They had to taxi 2 crew men in to change shifts and 2 crew men had to be taxi'd into K.Falls and put up in a motel for the night then be taxi'd back to Redding the next day. The expense just for that was $1650.00. With all the fines and fees attatched to all of this, the grand total was $2030.00, which we had to pay right then and there. To be kind ,for the moment, the judge told him he would drop the 1 year jail time. He was not to be near the train tracks ever again unless he was on the train. This was pretty hefty for playing a harmless game.
Link to comment

Recently, I discovered what I feel to be a truely unique memorial... I thought it would be a wonderful candidate for a virtual cache but decided to send a message to prime approver to see if he would approve it before I created it . The following is the message and the responce that I recieved back from prime approver...

 

Begin Quote

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:45:12 -0800, dragnfyr@classicnet.net <dragnfyr@classicnet.net> wrote:

> --This message was sent through the Geocaching.com web site--

>

> I would like to set up a virtual cache here in town, but wanted to

> run it by you before submitting it. Our local Fire Chief is a brother

> of one of the firmen who were killed at the world trade center....

> Many of our firefighters went to ground zero to assist in the rescue

> and clean up operations, when they returned they brought part of one

> of the structural beams back with them and have placed it as a

> monument to firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty... I have

> asked for and recieved permission to use this as a cache location, so

> long as I dont put any kind of container there... I believe this is

> both a unique and significant rememberance of the world trade center

> attack, and fallen fire fighters in general.... the question is, is

> this something you would approve as a virtual? I can send you a

> picture if you need to see what it looks like

 

From: Prime Approver [mailto:prime.approver@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:48 AM

 

This sounds like a great idea for a cache. However, I would think it should be possible to use some piece of information from the site to lead the cacher to a physical cache placed elsewhere. If this is at a firehouse, the firehouse number, the street address, or some other clue could be used as a redirector.

 

I'm afraid that under the current rules, that's the only way it would be approved - as a multi or puzzle. The guidelines are pretty clear

on not being to use monuments and memorials as virtual caches.

End Quote

 

the description and guidelines for virtual caches as listed on GC.com are:

 

Begin Quote Description

"Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there. Note, however, that new virtual cache proposals are only approved if they meet the all of conditions listed in the guidelines below. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page.

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep that in mind when submitting your cache report."

 

Begin Quote guidelines

"Virtual and Reverse Virtual (or Locationless) Caches

 

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. While previous guidelines for these categories were somewhat loose to encourage innovation, it is now appropriate to add clarification.

 

Some earlier postings do not meet these clarified guidelines, although they are allowed to stay as grandfathered caches. They will not be considered as justification or as precedents for future submissions.

 

The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane.

 

If after reading the guidelines below you believe you have a compelling reason why your potential posting should be listed, please state your rationale clearly in a note to the approvers.

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report.

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a permanent object at a location that was already there. Typically, the cache “hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

"Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

 

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) generally do not qualify as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the Geocaching.com web site. (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle might be acceptable, but contact your local approver first before posting it as a virtual cache to work out the details.) If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted."

 

My gripe and or complaint about this is two fold...

First, the assumption on the part of the approver that "The guidelines are pretty clear on not being to use monuments and memorials as virtual caches." Your guidelines NEVER state that, in fact they state "Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."... so where in the guidelines is he getting the information to make this statement??

My second issue is that he states that the only way this can be approved is if its used as part of a multi... To me, stating that was gross misinterpretation of the guidelines which state "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." I dont see it stated anywhere in the guidelines that there MUST be a cache container somewhere... I was given permission to use this as a cache so long as there wasnt a container placed there, and having someone cross the street and grab a container out of the bushes would take away from feeling you get from this... In all honesty, the only real log to ANY cache is the one on the cache page at GC or any of the other sites where caches get listed....

 

I guess what I am trying to point out is that the guidelines are loosely worded on purpose, to be flexable... But that what we are seeing more and more are places where words such as "may, might, and could" are being interpreted as "cannot, will not, and shal not"... Unfortunately when things stop being flexible and become rigid, things tend to break....

Link to comment
...anarchist disgruntled few who do not want to play by the rules.

But what are the rules of geocaching? What are the rules of geocaching.com?

 

See? There is a difference.

There is a difference, but not one that matters on this site. I don't understand why you are obsessed with keeping gc.com rules/guidelines/practices from being applied to people that log into and use the gc.com web site.

 

I understand that geocaching exists on other sites, but why come to this site, on this forum, and complain that this site is run by policies that were created for this site and not for all sites?

 

Why create a "code of ethics" on this web site but insist that it not be site specific? It seems to me that this code of yours belongs on your own personal web site.

 

The rules of geocaching.com are decided on by the good folks at geocaching.com for use on geocaching.com and to be followed by players who use the cache listings on geocaching.com.

 

Makes perfect sense to me.

Link to comment
The rules or guidelines or whatever you want to call them all exist for a reason...

With all due respect, not all of the responses to some incidences are logical.

 

For instance, buried caches are not allowed because of the NPS concerns. But because the NPS does want caches to be buried and thus have banned caches from their stewardships, then all buried caches are banned?

 

I know all of the arguments, however why couldn't a person with full permission from the owner of the property dig a hole to place a cache in a way the finder can easily leave the area as they found it? I'd say such a cache is perfectly within the spirit of goecaching. However, it is forbidden here.

 

Sure the rules are there for a reason, but were they the appropriate response? In some cases, I'd have to say, "no."

Link to comment
Snip

 

Nearly every time that someone comes here complaining that their cache was not approved it turns out that they had violated the posted guidelines in some way. 

 

Snip

Yep.. the original anarchist complainer's cache posting was directed inappropriately to calling an approver names. Could not make out just exactly what the title was since it was deleted. In the body of the description name calling just was inappropriate and should not have been approved.

I know this has all been a little jumbled, but let me try to sort some of it out:

 

February 10, 2003: Cache "Hornytoads In the GreenBelt" is hidden by Grajek and approved for listing on geocaching.com.

Numerous visitors find this cache and sign the logbook and post their finds online.

 

November 3, 2004: Cache attributes is "announced" by Jeremy in the forums. The aforementioned conflict leads to 9Key's resignation as an approver. Of course, since 9Key is very popular in Texas, cachers here are likely going to want to support him and some consider this as an us vs them issue. This starts some rumblings in Texas that Big Green is taking the little rednecks in the Lone Star State for granted.

Prime Approver is now responsible to review all caches in Texas.

 

December 14, 2004: For reasons discussed in this thread, Grajek archives most of his caches. As a protest, he leaves the Hornytoads cache active and changes the name and description to something offensive and inappropriate. Whether you, I or anyone else agrees with this tactic is irrelevant. It forced TPTB to take action.

 

Grajek did what he felt he needed to do and GC.com responded in about the only way it could. Archive the cache, change the name and ban Grajek for a day.

 

Once word of this reached the forums, it took on a life of its own. Of course nobody had all the facts, (me included), but by God, we all jumped in to add our opinions because we're all SO clever and have a unique angle that will either shut the other side up or at least enrage them a little more.

 

So here we are. Still name-calling, finger-pointing and being just as divisive. After all, what fun is a staring at a car wreck, once they've hosed off all the blood?

 

(edit) - typo

Edited by MMACH 5
Link to comment
Makes perfect sense to me.

I fail follow your logic or even see your point of view on some the statements you've made.

 

But I will address one query:

Why create a "code of ethics" on this web site but insist that it not be site specific?

Because it is for the whole of the geocaching community, not just gc.com. I did it here because it has the most traffic and I was asked here if I wanted to do it.

 

How's that?

Link to comment
I know all of the arguments, however why couldn't a person with full permission from the owner of the property dig a hole to place a cache in a way the finder can easily leave the area as they found it?  I'd say such a cache is perfectly within the spirit of goecaching.  However, it is forbidden here.

 

Sure the rules are there for a reason, but were they the appropriate response?  In some cases, I'd have to say, "no."

Not true, I have found caches that were flush with the ground, I have found caches that were technically, buried under detritus or even sand on a beach. I even own a cache that is technically, buried, with full permission of the property owner and required no pointy objects to hide or find. They are out there because they clearly fall within the spirit of the guideline and they were approved because the hider took the time to work with tptb and explain how these caches were technically outside of the rules, but that extenuating circumstances made them acceptable. That is why they are guidelines and not rules. As I have stated many times, there is a big difference between complaining that the world is not fair, and getting out there and working to make your corner of it better.

 

The guidelines we have are all linked to a specific incident and can hardly be called innapropriate. I do not see any that fly in the face of common sense. They are there for a reason, if you cannot see that I am sorry.

 

Edit for spelling

Edited by Monkeybrad
Link to comment

November 3, 2004: Cache attributes is "announced" by Jeremy in the forums. The aforementioned conflict leads to 9Key's resignation as an approver. Of course, since 9Key is very popular in Texas, cachers here are likely going to want to support him and some consider this as an us vs them issue. This starts some rumblings in Texas that Big Green is taking the little rednecks in the Lone Star State for granted.

Prime Approver is now responsible to review all caches in Texas.

Only mistake is the date. Jeremy actually announced cache attributes in the forums more then 2.5yrs ago. Yea, things like that have taken a long time coming, but 2.5yrs ago 5000 cache logs a week were a big deal, now 70,000 in a week are no big deal. Enhancements like attributes and locationless caches took a back seat to just keeping the site stable and running.

Link to comment
For instance, buried caches are not allowed because of the NPS concerns. But because the NPS does want caches to be buried and thus have banned caches from their stewardships, then all buried caches are banned?

No its not. It is disallowed because of the bad connotations with burying things and trying to find it again when your device is accurate to a 20 foot radius.

 

I know all of the arguments, however why couldn't a person with full permission from the owner of the property dig a hole to place a cache in a way the finder can easily leave the area as they found it?  I'd say such a cache is perfectly within the spirit of goecaching.  However, it is forbidden here.

 

It isn't forbidden here. There are exceptions to the guidelines. However I would agree that in most cases (metal detector caches, for example) they are not allowed. But only remotely due to the perception of geocaching. There is a more practical reason for it.

Link to comment
Not true, I have found caches that were flush with the ground, I have found caches that were technically, buried under detritus or even sand on a beach. I even own a cache that is technically, buried, with full permission of the property owner and required no pointy objects to hide or find.

Oh, come on! Who hasn't found a cache that wasn't "technically buried" under forest debris? If not, you've not been caching long.

 

Dude, I know you're smart enough to know you've just side stepped what I'm talking about. "Technically buried," "flush with the ground" these are found holes. You know good and well that's not what I'm talking about.

 

I'm talking about a land owner purposely using a shovel, escavating a spot to sink a container, and creating a cache where the finder can access the cache without a "pointy object."

 

That's what I'm talking about.

Link to comment

 

Grajek did what he felt he needed to do and GC.com responded in about the only way it could. Archive the cache, change the name and ban Grajek for a day.

There is the rub. The person chose a totally inappropriate way to resolve an issue that has methods to correct them.

 

That many seem to want to come out and support that sort of inappropriate behavior fits with anarchy. No surprise there. Texas has always wanted to secede from something. Though I am certain most texans disagree.

Link to comment
I fail follow your logic or even see your point of view on some the statements you've made.

Not surprising.

 

You don't understand why gc.com should be able to forbid buried caches on the gc.com site. But why not? They never said that buried caches shouldn't be listed at any site, just theirs. Why isn't this good enough for you?

 

To use the food analogy from an earlier page, if Taco Bell decided that they didn't want to offer super sized value meals (I have no idea if they do or not, it's just an example), but you liked the super size option, would you think it's wrong? If you were on the Taco Bell forums would you complain that since other restaurants allowed super sizing of value meals that Taco Bell was being unreasonable?

 

Super sizing meals is perfectly within the spirit of food service, so why wouldn't Taco Bell offer it?

 

My point is, if gc.com decides to forbid buried caches, virtual caches, traveling caches, or if they want to set up any policies at all, it's how they choose to run their site. Accept it.

 

Suggesting to them that they make changes is one thing. But to insist that they're wrong if they decide not to change is just childish.

Link to comment

As am I. I know the story, I placed the cache in a hole I dug on property that I own. My reviewer also knows the story and that is why it was approved. I say flush with the ground because it is not necessary to dig to find my cache. I also mentioned finding a cache buried in sand on the beach, the cache page described that it was buried and how you had to go about finding it.

 

I have been around a little and found a couple of these things, and that is why I say that there are good common sense exceptions to the guidelines out there and that there are good reasons for these guidelines to exist in the first place. You can play the semantics games as much as you like, but what it all comes down to is that Geocaching.com is geocaching, and as much as that sucks for people who do not like it, it is still true. People occassionally want to jump ship becasue of some perceived slight, but they always come crawling back, because this is the best deal going. Opencaching, came and went as will terracaching and whatever the name of the next one is. The fact is that this website is very well run and if you will try to work with them, they willl work with you to make it better for all of us. If you are constantly bucking the system and always complaining about the problems instead of offering viable solutions then you are a part of the problem. No one owes you a happy or entertaining experience.

Link to comment

Wow.

6 pages about nothing.

Kind of funny a cache in Texas is the cause of a heated debate. In fact, anything about Texas is pretty funny. Heck, when I was drivin through on my cross-country trip a few years ago I was laughin my a** off the whole dang time. And I have no idea why.

Maybe it was the "dont mess with Texas" signs all over the place. I was like "no actually, I would not like to 'mess' with any state for that matter, im just drivin through - in fact, the faster I can get out of this god-forsaken land the better."

 

Ahh... the good ol days.

 

(hey all in good fun, right? I could make fun of any state)

Edited by Grimstone
Link to comment
I fail follow your logic or even see your point of view on some the statements you've made.

Not surprising.

Of course it's not surprising when there is no logic to follow.

 

Here, let me clue you in on something, the reason I rail against what I consider ill-conceived guidelines is because I want this site to be better.

 

But you know what? I'll give Jeremy the opportunity right here, right now, to tell me he doesn't want any of my input anymore. No more suggestions. No more trying to change things here. I'll just chat about geocaching and not mention anything about how gc.com is run. How's that?

 

Jeremy? Say the word.

Link to comment
I'll give Jeremy the opportunity right here, right now, to tell me he doesn't want any of my input anymore. No more suggestions. No more trying to change things here.

More childishness.

 

Nobody ever said suggesting changes was a bad thing. Some really cool updates to the site came from user suggestions.

 

Its just the behavior if someones suggestion is turned down, or if their opinion isn't shared by TPTB that is hard to understand.

Link to comment
I'll give Jeremy the opportunity right here, right now, to tell me he doesn't want any of my input anymore.  No more suggestions.  No more trying to change things here.

More childishness.

 

Nobody ever said suggesting changes was a bad thing. Some really cool updates to the site came from user suggestions.

 

Its just the behavior if someones suggestion is turned down, or if their opinion isn't shared by TPTB that is hard to understand.

You can't seem to make up your mind, can you?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...