Garbage In, Cash Out? (gico)

[SpiffJr]

So if you are seeking my approval (and why would you) to run around and clean caches...

 

I don't think anybody is... it has always been an issue of discovering a broad basis for ettiquitte in a part of the game.

 

The informative portion of what has transpired is that there is *broad* disagreement, with literal "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" from members of all experience levels. There is a lesson in this fact.

 

The lesson, to me, is that there is no basis for saying that there is an "obvious" and accepted position to guide people in this case. That is a valuable understanding in and of itself.

 

I appreciate that everyone has views that are essentially personal, and formed of their unique experiences and beliefs, but, apparently, that is all they are.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I cannot see where anyone's definition of ettiquitte can include the disrespect of another persons property and creativity. By pushing your views of "clean" onto an object owned and created by another, I sincerely feel you are violating one of the most foundational principles of ettiquitte: that would be respect.

 

The "dogpile" you refer to is indeed those that care about their caches expressing concern (if not outrage) at your form of ettiquitte and control.

 

If there isn't a concensus then I would again suggest you err on the side of respect and allow others to control their caches. Send them a note: yes, Post a log: yes -- take it upon yourself to make subjective decisions on what is "right" -- no.

 

You can place your own caches that conform you your own standards. There are community standards here that are sufficient and are not in need of modification to "improve" the game. The game is good enough and does not need additional "rules" to "enhance" it. Does it really completely ruin your day when you find a cache that is not pristine? If so, parks and the outdoors is not the cleanest of hobbies.

 

I just get bent out of shape as I imagine the brown-shirts congregating upon my cache to ensure that I have planted the correct flora and fauna in the area to enhance the appeal of the hunt.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Oh, also.

 

If you ask someone the question:

 

"Do you mind if I remove a dead bird and old gum wrappers from your cache?" and you recieve the answer "go ahead -- thanks"

 

You cannot use that as the justification for removing an item such as a cracked toy, or something you consider to be equally "trashy" based upon your subjective analysis.

 

That is the logical falicy of "the thin-leading wedge"

 

Cloak it in whatever terms you wish -- it remains interference and is stepping beyond both reasonable expectations or respect.

 

Whether you do decide to interfere is based upon your own self-image, ego and sense of morality. I, for one, really don't appreciate it when it comes to the caches I have planted. Sorry -- no thank-you from me.

 

Edit:

Given that there is a split: Some appreciate your efforts to clean, some do not. When in doubt, do not "clean" the cache. I have yet to see one opinion expressed here where someone was offended by NOT having a cache they owned cleaned. If someone is offended by FINDING a trash-cache, they should let the owner know.

Edited January 3, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

[SpiffJr]

I cannot see where anyone's definition of ettiquitte can include the disrespect of another persons property and creativity. By pushing your views of "clean" onto an object owned and created by another, I sincerely feel you are violating one of the most foundational principles of ettiquitte: that would be respect.

 

Interesting. Are you saying that the trade items are owned by the cache owner as they are traded in and out?

 

And if leaving something cleaner than how you found it is disrespectful, then what is that saying?

 

It sounds as if you are taking a sort of "fundimentalist" view now... that is all about having the cache evolve into whatever the cosmos/fate will cause it to become without being spoiled by the "intent" behind a trade which might alter it out of its, for lack of a better word, "natural" state.

 

Would this mean that you now say that trade should occurr only because the player "desires" an item in the cache?

 

Before, you said that intent to take junk in trade was "thumbs up".

 

Now I'm not sure what you are saying. Honestly.

Edited January 3, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+Mikel & ErinsWeb]

Wow.

 

Two days of posting, nit picking and selective qouting for replies. What exactly are you looking for? Right now it just appears to be a rock throwing contest.

 

It appears that this thread needs to be locked.

[SpiffJr]

Wow.

 

Two days of posting, nit picking and selective qouting for replies. What exactly are you looking for? Right now it just appears to be a rock throwing contest.

 

It appears that this thread needs to be locked.

 

It's always interesting to me to hear of people that view philosophical discussion as a sort of war that needs to be stopped.

 

I think China does that sort of thing...

 

Rock climbing is now a mature sport. As a rock climber of many years, I became impressed by the work of those that came before me.

 

They saw that as the popularity of the sport grew, unanticipated things started to happen... among them, the rock itself was becoming scarred. That which seemed so solid and firm was literally decaying. On both the level of enjoyment of the sport, and the protection of the resources of the sport, there was a dark cloud looming.

 

Their collective work on the philosophies, and principles surrounding all aspects of the sport has by many accounts "saved" the sport (not to mention the rock!)

 

You may not have appreciation for this type of process... you may think it needs to be suppressed. You may even feel that ther needs to be a "dictator" of sorts that "runs" things... or total anarchy...

 

I'm sure there were such people in the sport of climbing.

 

I'm sure glad their view did not prevail.

 

(And not to worry, for those who take it upon themselves to track the "arrogance factor" of others (as if doing so made any difference whatsoever with anything): I am under no illusions that this thread is some kind of grand effort to "save" anything, or that anything needs "saving" at all. What is becoming interesting here is: what do people currently think? What assumptions do they operate under? What "rules" guide them? I think that those are the important things to observe here, and are VERY material to the future of the sport.)

 

But by all means. Kill discssion. It works for China.

Edited January 3, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+stugotz]

The idea of trading in a cache is to put something of at least equal quality in the cache as the item you take. What you do with the item you take is your business. If you wish to put a good quality item in the cache and take what you consider to be the lowest quality then, in your mind, you have improved the cache. If you wish to throw the item you took in the garbage, go for it.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited January 3, 2005 by chet99

[+5¢]

Hi all...

 

New to caching... but disappointed that of the caches that I have seen, fellow GCers let the contents degrade. I'm sure it's a matter of time before I find a "pretty rock" that someone picked up along the way.

 

My current thought is to Cito the cache as well. Has this been done before?

 

The philosophy, to me, should be like a campsite: leave it better than when you found it.

 

To do that, one can improve something, or remove that which is damaging. Or both!

 

Broken toys, used and filthy stuff that *should* have gone to the land fill actually detract from the cache... and that their removal actually raises the cache value, like removing rotten apples from a pile of good ones.

 

I'd hate to see this hobby turn into a nutty exercise where hundreds of thousands of people are burning fossil fuels to move small anounts of trash around in circles across the globe.

 

Cito the cache. Leave it better than you found it.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

So back to the beginning of this thread and getting it back on track and off of the mudslinging. What is the problem with what was said in the opening statement?

 

This thread has turned into a discussion of personal choice and interpretation. I believe this thread was brought on to bring back to light a problem (if one wishes to call it that) that is well known. If this person wishes to make a cache better than what is the harm?

 

Instead of as a community either telling him that he is beating a dead horse or arguing with him, why not encourage the fact that (as he clearly stated in his opening statement) he wants to remove junk from the cache and place better stuff in it.

 

As much as many may not want to believe it, a thread like this may touch someone who hasn't really thought about what they leave in a cache. It may actually make them think next time when they leave something in a cache "is this something I would want to find, or am I just leaving this because I feel I have to leave something."

 

As many have stated most people don't leave stuff in a cache after caching for awhile. Many arguements are that it becomes to expensive, etc. I know one reason I quit trading stuff on the most part except for sig cards is the fact that most of the stuff in a lot of caches is broken toys and used filthy stuff.

 

I personally practice what is being talked about in the beginning of this thread. On many occasions I have been known to "Santa Clause" a cache. Not too long ago I came across a cache that was literally empty. I dropped probably ten dollars worth of new stuff so the next finder would have something to trade if they so wished. My personal travel bug is called the CCC (cache crap collector). Its mission is to swap out junk and leave good swag. Let me rephrase the word good and use clean, new or in like new condition. If anyone would like to tell me what I am doing is wrong then I guess I don't get the point of "leave something equal or better than what you took."

 

The point of this thread as usual has become lost in retarded arguement which I will admit I wrapped myself into one time. The general nitpicking has caused the purpose of this thread, which if you have forgotten was to respread the awareness of cache degredation and possible bring it back into light and make maybe a few people think about what they are doing.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Now I'm not sure what you are saying.  Honestly.

I'm saying that you should allow that cache owner to control the cache. Don't assume your activities of "cleaning" are required or appreciated by everyone.

 

The game has no cleaning function. Hide, Find, Sign, Trade

 

It's really quite simple.

 

*I* don't WANT you to make my cache *better* -- nope, nope, nope. I want you to enjoy finding and enjoying the hunt. Don't presume that our version of *better* is the same.

 

I can't explain it any more simply:

 

Stay AWAY from my caches except to FIND, SIGN, and TRADE. Anything else you want to do regarding quality, cleanliness, political message, moral message, happy-dance safety-bear-angel motivation is really not appreciated by myself as a cache hider.

 

It's the same reason I don't list new routes on rock climbs -- I don't want some idiot with a drill setting-up bolts in the name of "improvement".

 

If there is anything you need clarification on -- just ask. I'm done repeating myself and apologize to those that have has to listen.

 

Dog-out

Edited January 3, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Wow.

 

Right now it just appears to be a rock throwing contest.

 

PLEASE don't throw my pretty rocks!!!!

 

(I'm sorry: it was really hard to resist this one!!)

 

I'm done with this thread now - really.

 

Thanks for letting me have some fun!

 

Hope to meet up with you sometime, SpiffJr. I think you've been a good sport.

 

Happy caching!

 

Momma Marauder

[+Marky]

Here is an example of how I deal with this issue:

 

2:35pm - It was a nice day out today. Found the nicely hidden cache.  Took the box cutter knife (probably shouldn't have been left in the cache), left a deck of casino cards and one of our smashed penny sig items.  Thanks for the cache and the hike.

 

Not much else needed to do than that. Lead by example, I say. I made a trade that I thought was even or better. I had a good time. No worrys.

 

--Marky

[+ValleyRat & TillyMouse]

We love finding a cache and don't really give a big RA what cachers before us left there; we always leave something better that we take.

 

I'm guessing that geocaching is not really for someone so objective. If you decide to stay, however, welcome!

Edited January 3, 2005 by valleyrat

[+sbell111]

...and yet, here is where I got confused... another charter member from 2001 had this to say on this exact topic:

 

"I agree that removing these types of things makes the cache better. There's no redeeeming value to expired coupons, no-longer-elastic balloons, someone's business card, crumpled bumper stickers, or a rusty keyring."

 

...PS... please DO NOT confront the person that wrote the quote above. There is no call for such a thing. I can take the heat. That does not mean anyone else should.

Why would anyone get upset? It is not uncommon for people to disagree.

 

I don't know when the quote was made (and I'm too lazy to do a search). You might be careful taking advice from an old thread, however. Things change.

[+The Jester]

Yep, that answered the question.

[+sbell111]

OK, I did a search. It was posted in the short-lived duplicate thread.

 

In that thread, the destinction was not made that there would be no trade for items that were deemed to be inferior. In the broad context of that thread, I agree with MissJenn. I think caches would be improved if some of the very junky items were removed. I do believe, however, that the method of removal for items which are not obviously trash (or forbidden) should be by trading them out.

[+sbell111]

SpiffJr- Somewhat offtopic, when you quote someone, it really helps to leave the original posters name and the posting time in. This helps readers understand the context of the original post and your reply.

 

Also, since this issue has been discussed many times, why do you believe that your argument is any better than the similar positions made previously?

[SpiffJr]

Actually, the basenote of that other thread is identical, in every way (it is a verbatim copy). (spare the lecture on cross posting. What's done is done.)

 

The only difference was the kind of people likely to see it (people interested in Cito) the general conduct of those inolved (which may be related to the first difference), and the conclusions reached (which also may be related to the first difference).

 

I think caches would be improved if some of the very junky items were removed.

 

Yikes! Watch out for the flames...

 

Suggesting such a thing got me an ammo box rammed sideways you my kazoo.

 

But seriously, hopefully things have calmed down enough so that such a simple sentiment can be expressed without panic.

 

5 cents (how does one make that symbol anyways?)

 

Thanks for the thoughtful note. You and DaveA are some especially cool dudes...

[SpiffJr]

SpiffJr- Somewhat offtopic, when you quote someone, it really helps to leave the original posters name and the posting time in. This helps readers understand the context of the original post and your reply.

 

Also, since this issue has been discussed many times, why do you believe that your argument is any better than the similar positions made previously?

Thanks for the thought...

 

My decision was to protect that original person from the venom here. I felt it improper to reconstruct a "post" from someone into a new thread... without their knowledge/permission (as you can tell by my plea to spare them the thumps people in these forums are apparently all to ready to give). I can take the thumps, and know how to thump back. I would never assume that anyone else should based on my decision alone.

 

RE: "discussed many times"

 

I have made calles within this thread for help in finding them, expressing interest nunmerous times... (including to you, I believe) but so far, no help.

 

I guess people would rather contribute fresh work :-)

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

[SpiffJr]

Here is an example of how I deal with this issue:

 

2:35pm - It was a nice day out today. Found the nicely hidden cache.  Took the box cutter knife (probably shouldn't have been left in the cache), left a deck of casino cards and one of our smashed penny sig items.  Thanks for the cache and the hike.

 

Not much else needed to do than that. Lead by example, I say. I made a trade that I thought was even or better. I had a good time. No worrys.

 

--Marky

Cool... has that been working? (I assume that you do it to improve the sport)

 

I think that is the final metric... is this concept (which is old and well established) doing all that needs to be done to actually do what is hoped of it? Or is the sport slowly losing ground? Gaining ground?

 

I have also wondered about cache condition and trades for caches closer to populated or well traveled areas, verses remote ones. (in other words, does the accessability of the cache to humanity improve the cache, or degrade it?)

 

I think that, strictly speaking, if the "Try to trade with equal or better" meme was very effective, there would be a lexus in each older/more accessable cache by now :-)

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+wimseyguy]

By the very subjective definition you have used for removal of "dangerous" swag, we are already in trouble with a classic cache item. And is porn really dangerous?

Hmm, never really thought of porn as classic cache swag, and haven't really seen much (in caches that is) in the past 2.5 years either. But it IS dangerous; someone could put an EYE out with those staples you know!

This whole thread reads like an excellent argument for logs like this:

Found your cache. Interesting location. TNLNSL -TFTH

[SpiffJr]

This whole thread reads like an excellent argument for logs like this:

Found your cache. Interesting location. TNLNSL -TFTH

Well... that is perhaps what is happening... and one would expect to happen, given trade memes that are inadequate to changes in the sport. The eventual death of the trade.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

The informative portion of what has transpired is that there is *broad* disagreement, with literal "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" from members of all experience levels.  There is a lesson in this fact.

 

I think that the few who said they think cleaning the cache was a noble thing were folks who were speaking of their being OK with you 'cleaning' *their* cache. In the event they are speaking of more than their own cache then they are not qualified to speak on the matter as this is a sport where we recognize the rights of the cache owner to do as they wish with their cache, subject to the rules of the site they wish to list the cache with.

 

I think when the question is rephrased to your appointing yourself as a cache cleaner in general and you indicate that you find certain items worthy of being CITOed where there genuinely is no broad agreement that those are items that should be removed your support drops to zero, or nearly so.

 

Really it boils down to what the person who took the time to create, place, list and maintain the cache wants. If you are thinking that there is no consensus that the wishes of the cache owner are to be respected I think you should start a poll and see the results.

 

This is why you should not remove things from a cache other than via the trade it out rule or removing obvious garbage (be very conservative about what you consider 'obvious' here).

 

It could be that the cache owner would be delighted by your cleaning it out. Easy way to find out is email the cache owner. If you feel the cache is totally junk and the owner doesn't respond to emails, then use the archive feature to bring it to the attention of the staff. Heck, you could even adopt the cache this way if you were so inclined.

 

Where I think you are getting near 100% disagreement is with the idea that it is considered acceptable to remove items you perceive to be of low value. Trash is trash, but you have not been consistent in describing trash and as I noted in my first post in this thread you sound like you are talking about low quality items. You admitted that was the case in your response. Trash and low value/quality items are not the same thing.

 

As for any cache I might place I would not want you removing anything from it except that which you trade for. If you have any questions about what is acceptable or unacceptable to me, email me.

 

I have only placed one cache and it went missing in about a month. That has discouraged me from placing any others. If I do place another and put various items including some low value trinket/toys in it and upon returning for a maintenance visit found all those low value items missing with nothing left in return I would be similarly discouraged.

 

This sport works on the honor/respect system and taking it upon yourself to do the cache owner's job of maintenance without their expressed consent is neither honorable nor respectful regardless of your intentions.

 

The question you have to ask yourself if this "Do I know that this cache owner wants this removed?" If you can't answer yes then leave it be and ask (email) the owner/maintainer.

[SpiffJr]

there genuinely is no broad agreement that those are items that should be removed

 

I think that a "should remove" concept is quite a burden, I don't personally feel that this sport could or should support such a thing.

 

It would tend to kill it off, I think you would agree. Cito is not what you "should" do. I think that it is couched as "a good idea for those that feel like making that level of a contribution", and I made the paralell to Cito from the start.

 

Now... as far as having an "option" to do so... especially with a trade...

 

... a totally different matter. Yes?

 

I think that the few who said they think cleaning the cache was a noble thing were folks who were speaking of their being OK with you 'cleaning' *their* cache.

 

I doubt this... as I phrased it, I believe, clearly enough:

(and who said it was "noble"?... I think that the best one might find is that it was "ok")

 

My current thought is to Cito the cache as well. Has this been done before?

 

The philosophy, to me, should be like a campsite: leave it better than when you found it.

 

"Cito" and the campsite activity plainly refer to those that visit. And take this quote from an experienced cacher:

 

"I think a most geocachers clean up caches when they find them in rough shape"

 

Sorry... I don't see that anyone is confused about it being a visitor to a cache at all. Nobody has come forward to say "oh... I get it now... " either.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

Now... as far as having an "option" to do so... especially with a trade...

 

... a totally different matter.

 

I would appreciate your addressing the rest of my post, specifically the parts about respecting the wishes of the cache owners.

 

However, you have used several terms interchangably here. You alternate between trash and low value items, but back on page one you stated plainly you were speaking of low value items. These things aren't the same so if you really want to know if ***anyone*** agrees with you make sure you plainly tell them you are talking about low value items.

 

I think that the few who said they think cleaning the cache was a noble thing were folks who were speaking of their being OK with you 'cleaning' *their* cache.

 

I doubt this... as I phrased it, I believe, clearly enough:

 

My current thought is to Cito the cache as well. Has this been done before?

 

The philosophy, to me, should be like a campsite: leave it better than when you found it.

 

You haven't been clear as I explained above (and as other have pointed out to you) when you use trash to mean low value items. Using a campsite analogy is also not at all clear when you are speaking of low value items rather than trash. Of course people will agree that picking up empty beer cans left at a campsite is a good thing.

 

"Cito" and the campsite activity plainly refer to those that visit.  And take this quote from an experienced cacher:

 

"I think a most geocachers clean up caches when they find them in rough shape"

 

I agree with this experienced cacher, if we are talking about trash. You explicitly stated on page one of this thread you were speaking of low value items. You specifically named bouncy balls and army men.

 

You have also alternated between trading items out, leaving a dollar and removing several items and just removing items without leaving anything in trade.

 

So, I am sorry, but I do not regard you as having been at all clear on this topic. If you simply opened this thread by asking "Hey, do you guys think it is fine if I trade an LED flashlight for a bouncy ball or army man?" this thread would have gone away by now as it wouldn't have been at all controversial.

 

Sorry... I don't see that anyone is confused at all.  Nobody has come forward to say "oh... I get it now... " either.

 

There hasnt been enough time (you responded within minutes of my post). However, others have told you you weren't being clear and that you were interchanging terms too freely. Another poster asked you for clarification as to what you were talking about specifically and I don't recall your answering that question.

 

But, lets just clarify everything right here and now, OK. Please answer the following question plainly:

 

1. Are you suggesting that you remove items from a cache that many would not consider trash, but low value items (like army men and bouncy balls) without the expressed consent of the owner?

[SpiffJr]

rights of the cache owner to do as they wish with their cache

 

I've have not detected anything that says that cache "owners" try to exercise rule with an iron fist... instead leaving it largely to the momentum of the sport... but I may certainly be wrong about this, and that cache owners have very specific thoughts on what they either wish or require happen.

 

I would be curious... what percentage of caches come with any explicit instructions at all with regard to swag? If that percentage is very low (which I suspect is the case... but don't know how to discover without a LOT of mouse clicks :-) then it would seem that baseline traditon and guidelines are the norm we all should work within.

 

The birth of the sport shows a strong appreciation for the informal, with "take some stuff, leave some stuff" being the only rule, which I find very appealing, as it trusts in the good nature of people to do the right thing. (at least the people likely to participate back in mid 2000 when the rule was penned... which, clearly, is now a different set of people).

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

If you would like to continue this conversation with me then kindly answer the numbered question in my last post.

 

If you are going to ignore the questions I ask you then this isn't a conversation.

[SpiffJr]

However, you have used several terms interchangably here

 

I'm pretty sure that is untrue (but certainly you might have that perception). I think everyone has done a good job in trying not to have usage hop around too much.

 

I try my best to calibrate my usage with those that I am talking to.

 

I think you are ascribing to *my* usage something that is in actuality very uncertain for everyone, especially when comparing person to person. Of course there can be confusion... but that is due to the subjective nature of the topic.

 

Here is a good example that I think shows how I differentiate, from an earlier post.

 

I have zero problems taking out trash without trade.

I have zero problems taking out junk swag for a buck.

 

I hope it aligns with yours.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[SpiffJr]

If you would like to continue this conversation with me then kindly answer the numbered question in my last post.

 

If you are going to ignore the questions I ask you then this isn't a conversation.

Be patient.... I'm trying to give my son a spelling test at the same time here... this is a message board, not a telephone!

 

Ease up.

[+DaveA]

However, you have used several terms interchangably here

 

I'm pretty sure that is untrue (but certainly you might have that perception). I think everyone has done a good job in trying not to have usage hop around too much.

 

I try my best to calibrate my usage with those that I am talking to.

 

I think you are ascribing to *my* usage something that is in actuality very uncertain for everyone, especially when comparing person to person. Of course there can be confusion... but that is due to the subjective nature of the topic.

 

Here is a good example that I think shows how I differentiate, from an earlier post.

 

I have zero problems taking out trash without trade.

I have zero problems taking out junk swag for a buck.

 

I hope it aligns with yours.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

OK,

 

After you finish working with your kid, please answer the question I asked you to answer.

 

Also, please answer this scenario.

 

You seek and find my cache. In this cache I have placed a variety of items. Some of those items are "bouncy balls and army men". (to use two examples of what you have called junk) This is something more than just a hypothetical because these 2 items are things my 5 year old boy loves to find in a cache so I probably would have these items in a cache I placed.

 

If someone were to visit my cache and remove the army men and bouncy balls I would be irritated.

 

If I found that the number of items in the cache was comparable to the number I placed I wouldn't care, but in that case if the balls and army men were gone I would probably assume those 2 items were "hot" items and restock them.

 

If I knew there was a cacher out there who was not leaving a comparable number of items, just removing the things I left for the little cachers I would be irate.

 

So, would you think it proper to remove the bouncy balls and army men from my cache? How about the glow in the dark spider rings I put there for the kids?

[SpiffJr]

Time to slow waaaayyy down, Dave,

 

You are confusing responses big time. Let's try to straghten it out...

 

I think that the few who said they think cleaning the cache was a noble thing were folks who were speaking of their being OK with you 'cleaning' *their* cache.

 

We are now talking about "*their*" cash, vs. someone elses... not the definition of trash or junk... right? follow me.

 

I doubt this... as I phrased it, I believe, clearly enough:

 

My current thought is to Cito the cache as well. Has this been done before?

 

The philosophy, to me, should be like a campsite: leave it better than when you found it.

 

Here I am talking about the possibility that anyone was confused about *owner* actions, verses *player* actions. But you get off track:

 

"You haven't been clear as I explained above (and as other have pointed out to you) when you use trash to mean low value items. Using a campsite analogy is also not at all clear when you are speaking of low value items rather than trash. Of course people will agree that picking up empty beer cans left at a campsite is a good thing."

 

Not on topic. We are talking about your assertion that some people believe that they were thinking about cleaning "*their*" cache... we have not gotten to word definitions yet. This next comment clearly is still examining this:

 

"Cito" and the campsite activity plainly refer to those that visit.  And take this quote from an experienced cacher:

 

"I think a most geocachers clean up caches when they find them in rough shape"

 

The key words here are "geocachers" and "find"... which seems to me to speak to players finding caches, and not the owners.

 

So, again, I think that evidence is strong that nobody is confused about this being a discussion regarding caches that are NOT yours.

 

But here it is clear that you are thinking about terms... which is not where I was:

 

"I agree with this experienced cacher, if we are talking about trash. You explicitly stated on page one of this thread you were speaking of low value items. You specifically named bouncy balls and army men.

 

In short... every passage in this post was to answer your comment: "I think that the few who said they think cleaning the cache was a noble thing were folks who were speaking of their being OK with you 'cleaning' *their* cache".

 

Not about terms.

 

The terms are addressed in another note. (perhaps I should not have broken things into seperate notes... sorry about it. Should I not do this to make it better for you?)

[+DaveA]

no, Spiff, what would make this better for me is if you would answer my direct questions directly.

 

I have given you 2 to answer. Given the volume of posts you have made in this thread I don't see that time constraints are a real issue for you.

 

Either your next post answers the questions plainly or I write you off as a troll. I am not calling you a troll, but your not answering plain, direct questions is troll like.

[+sbell111]

What if the cache had only army men as one of my caches had? Would you just trash all the cache contents?

[+5¢]

If I took the army men and bouncy ball and left one 100 dollar bill would that be a fair trade? Is 2 army men and a bouncy ball a fair trade for a 100 dollar bill?

[+DaveA]

If I took the army men and bouncy ball and left one 100 dollar bill would that be a fair trade?  Is 2 army men and a bouncy ball a fair trade for a 100 dollar bill?

I think that examples like this are not helpful.

 

The question here is about a person removing items he doesn't like from a cache under the CITO principle.

 

The items he has identified as low value and to be removed (I have offered him 2 opportunities to correct me if I am wrong and so far he has responded, but not answered the opportunities) are items that have high value to children like army men and bouncy balls.

[SpiffJr]

But, lets just clarify everything right here and now, OK. Please answer the following question plainly:

 

1. Are you suggesting that you remove items from a cache that many would not consider trash, but low value items (like army men and bouncy balls) without the expressed consent of the owner?

 

Without a trade? No.

 

With a trade? Yes.

 

But note:

My original propositon (recognizing that we have discussed much) specifically mentioned "broken things" and "used and filty stuff". I called it things that belong in a land fill, and "trash". This was of course before anyone responded so that we could calibrate terms.

 

There was no mention in the original proposition of things in good repair but were of low percieved value.

[SpiffJr]

You seek and find my cache. In this cache I have placed a variety of items. Some of those items are "bouncy balls and army men". (to use two examples of what you have called junk) This is something more than just a hypothetical because these 2 items are things my 5 year old boy loves to find in a cache so I probably would have these items in a cache I placed.

 

So, would you think it proper to remove the bouncy balls and army men from my cache? How about the glow in the dark spider rings I put there for the kids?

 

Yes, on trade.

 

No, without.

 

And you are mistaken, I never called bouncy balls and army men junk.

[SpiffJr]

no, Spiff, what would make this better for me is if you would answer my direct questions directly.

 

I have given you 2 to answer.  Given the volume of posts you have made in this thread I don't see that time constraints are a real issue for you.

 

DUDE! Fercrissakes! Each thing IN ORDER, and BE PATIENT! My son has come home from school, and my time is no longer my own. I thought I made that clear.

 

Civility... ok?

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+5¢]

If I took the army men and bouncy ball and left one 100 dollar bill would that be a fair trade?  Is 2 army men and a bouncy ball a fair trade for a 100 dollar bill?

I think that examples like this are not helpful.

 

The question here is about a person removing items he doesn't like from a cache under the CITO principle.

 

The items he has identified as low value and to be removed (I have offered him 2 opportunities to correct me if I am wrong and so far he has responded, but not answered the opportunities) are items that have high value to children like army men and bouncy balls.

I thought it was the perfect example of showing how frivoulous this arguement is becoming. He says he would be making trades so why keep chucking the rocks?

[+DaveA]

But, lets just clarify everything right here and now, OK. Please answer the following question plainly:

 

1. Are you suggesting that you remove items from a cache that many would not consider trash, but low value items (like army men and bouncy balls) without the expressed consent of the owner?

 

Without a trade?  No.

 

With a trade?  Yes.

 

Then I have no objection and I doubt ***ANYONE*** here does. This makes me wonder why this thread has gone on for 3 pages. You are talking about trading out items and nobody would object to this, that is the purpose of swag. Take an item you really like or take an item you think sucks, makes no difference, just leave something in trade.

 

But note:

My original propositon (recognizing that we have discussed much) specifically mentioned "broken things" and "used and filty stuff".  I called it things that belong in a land fill, and "trash".  This was of course before anyone responded so that we could calibrate terms.

 

There was no mention in the original proposition of things in good repair but were of low percieved value.

 

You mentioned army men and bouncy balls specifically. It's pretty hard to find a "broken" or even "filthy" bouncy ball. Even the filthiest of bouncy balls can be cleaned in 2 seconds.

 

Surely you recognize that the last 3 pages of frustrated people were objecting to the belief you intended to remove low value items treating them as trash? What do you suppose people were objecting to?

[SpiffJr]

What if the cache had only army men as one of my caches had?  Would you just trash all the cache contents?

Is that for me?

 

First: I have never called a soldier junk. (to put a stop to the rumor)

I did call a soldier that was chewed on by a dog for three hours junk.

 

I would trade a soldier. Up in value.

 

I would never empty a cache of its swag.

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

I thought it was the perfect example of showing how frivoulous this arguement is becoming. He says he would be making trades so why keep chucking the rocks?

Because he has alternated in what he has said or at least I and a couple others have stated we percieve he has. Originally he equated removing low value items as being a CITO effort. Last time I checked CITO doesn't involve trading, it involves removing pollution type junk.

 

Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding, but really, who would object if he was very clear he simply was talking about trading low value (in his eyes) items with higher value(in his eyes) items?

 

This isn't anything new or controversial.

[+5¢]

Hi all...

 

New to caching... but disappointed that of the caches that I have seen, fellow GCers let the contents degrade. I'm sure it's a matter of time before I find a "pretty rock" that someone picked up along the way.

 

My current thought is to Cito the cache as well. Has this been done before?

 

The philosophy, to me, should be like a campsite: leave it better than when you found it.

 

To do that, one can improve something, or remove that which is damaging. Or both!

 

Broken toys, used and filthy stuff that *should* have gone to the land fill actually detract from the cache... and that their removal actually raises the cache value, like removing rotten apples from a pile of good ones.

 

I'd hate to see this hobby turn into a nutty exercise where hundreds of thousands of people are burning fossil fuels to move small anounts of trash around in circles across the globe.

 

Cito the cache. Leave it better than you found it.

 

Peace,

 

Spiff

I think this thread went 3 pages because no one read the entire first post. That post ends leave the cache better than how you found it.

[SpiffJr]

You mentioned army men and bouncy balls specifically.  It's pretty hard to find a "broken" or even "filthy" bouncy ball.  Even the filthiest of bouncy balls can be cleaned in 2 seconds.

 

You are making a serious (but I feel honest) error.

 

I suggest you VERY CAREFULLY read what you refer to re: army men and bouncy balls... it is all in post #4, my first reply in the thread.

 

They were not mentioned in the context of a "cache angel" type trade. It specifically mentions trading them both for an LED Flashlight.

 

You have made a mistake, my friend.

 

Regular review of the things you refer to is good policy, IMHO.

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

I think this thread went 3 pages because no one read the entire first post.  That post ends leave the cache better than how you found it.

Sure, but I was one of the first people to ask for clarification as to what he meant. My post said :

 

"If you are suggesting that folks use their subjective views and remove everything from a cache that they don't think is good enough then you are crossing a line that probably most cachers would consider unethical."

 

His response was:

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about...

 

And the confusion and acrimony began.

[+DaveA]

You mentioned army men and bouncy balls specifically.  It's pretty hard to find a "broken" or even "filthy" bouncy ball.  Even the filthiest of bouncy balls can be cleaned in 2 seconds.

 

You are making a serious (but I feel honest) error.

 

I suggest you VERY CAREFULLY read what you refer to re: army men and bouncy balls... it is all in post #4, my first reply in the thread.

 

They were not mentioned in the context of a "cache angel" type trade.

I believe I did misunderstand what you meant, Spiff. At the same time I think every single person who has expressed disagreement with you has misunderstood what you meant.

 

Removing trash (the garbage kind, not the low value object kind) is not controversial. There isn't a cache owner on the planet that would object.

 

Trading up isn't controversial, there isn't a cache owner on the planet that would object.

 

Removing low value items as though they were trash is very controversial and most cache owners would object.

 

If I was the only person who understood you to be speaking of this I would feel very bad, but I am nowhere near the only one who percieved you to be speaking of trashing out low value items. See my post above this one as to why I think this was.

[SpiffJr]

I am nowhere near the only one who percieved you to be speaking of trashing out low value items.

 

And you were right to, because I was exploring the upper definitions of trash, which borders on very low value stuff... where things would natrually get subjective, but, AGAIN, in my first post to you, I specifically acknowledged your concerns, and then OFFERED A TIGHTENED PROPOSAL.

 

That very message closed with it:

 

To "ethically" remove things... leave something of some percieved positive value, and remove all things of negative or zero value.

 

Would this scheme work better for you... ?

 

Was there something unclear about that?

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+DaveA]

I am nowhere near the only one who percieved you to be speaking of trashing out low value items.

 

And you were right to, because I was exploring the upper definitions of trash, which borders on very low value stuff... where things would natrually get subjective, but, AGAIN, in my first post to you, I specifically acknowledged your concerns, and then OFFERED A TIGHTENED PROPOSAL.

 

That very message closed with it:

 

To "ethically" remove things... leave something of some percieved positive value, and remove all things of negative or zero value.

 

Would this scheme work better for you... ?

I understand that, but you gave a specific example of leaving behind a dollar or a penlight and taking the low value stuff out. I would still object to this. I am not trying to insist upon a 1 to 1 trade ratio if the dollar value is clearly different, but I would object because army men and bouncy balls have a low dollar value, but they are higher value to little kids than higher dollar items that appeal to adults. To remove (theoretically) five low dollar value items with high appeal to kids for one item that has no appeal to kids, but would appeal to an adult deprives the cache of it's wide appeal.

 

Thing is, I don't really disagree with your present, articulated position. There is no disagreement between us. I, personally, object to removing several kid items for one adult item for the reason I stated, but honestly I don't really care. This is a really subjective thing and unless I explicitly state such wishes on my cache page and in a note in my cache I have no reason to expect this won't happen when some cacher with 5 kids comes along. It is a theoretical objection rather than an actual one.

 

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding you, but there appear to be several folks who have gone back and forth with you for 3 pages over a misunderstanding and I don't think those who have read your posts are solely at fault for the misunderstanding.

[SpiffJr]

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding you, but there appear to be several folks who have gone back and forth with you for 3 pages over a misunderstanding and I don't think those who have read your posts are solely at fault for the misunderstanding.

 

I appreciate it, and certainly accept your apology.... like I said, an honest mistake...

 

I think it's perhaps unwise to explore "fault" in things like this. I have found that one of the more profound and even Zen things I have ever heard of is: Sh*t happens.

 

Remember, this exact same thread was started in Cito at the exact same time, with very different results.

 

Outcomes are very much unpredictable, and interactions are complex, clearly.

 

I have experience approaching a quarter century on message boards... and if I had a nickle for every time I have seen, participated, or even launched this kind of thing, I could double the caches in the world.

 

The most destructive kinds of things are when people interfere with discussion, and start talking about "look at this arrogant newbie prick... so arrogant to think he is talking about something new". That is not discussion.

 

After reading that, why would anyone read a single word I said with care? Its general nature is already decided.

 

If someone paraphrases something... what will readers be responding to in the future... what I said, or what someone said I said? That is a hole that is hard to dig out of.

 

I emplored people to consider that there were deep subtlties in this concept... which I guarantee that most, if not all people still have not noticed or considered.

 

I guarantee to you that this concept comprehensively covers micro behavorial effects on the macro scale, is forward thinking, incorporating sport demographic change, and game maturity effects. It is WAY beyond and MUCH deeper than "would you mind if I threw out this broken baloon the next time I visit your cache again six months from now?" in an email to a cache owner. (who the heck would take the time to do that anyway? It's such a petty little thing all by itself... yet there the balloon sits...)

 

It is very possible (though I did not think so initially) that the full depth and breadth of what I have been proposing is in fact new in part, or having been proposed by someone else in the past, got the same basic treatment... and therefore has not been digested by any significant number of people. This sounds like someone claiming to have invented a new sexual position... I know. But sex is old. Geocaching has existed for only a few years. New things are on the horizon. New memes, new terms, new experiences.

 

Notice that I have now asked a few times for pointers to former discussion... but nobody has offered help, including a charter member that suggested I do so.

 

Damndest thing.

 

When people think that "I've had this discusson before" they will very likely behave, believe, and percieve in the exact same way as they had. They will miss subtle difference and details that are the clues to something new... and they will miss a critical moment of understanding. They will become frustrated since they never made it on to the "same page", and further conversation simply confounds and confuses.

 

And of course, so much more when it comes to human interaction.

 

EVERY message ever posted on any topic could certainly be improved... including mine. And once improved, improved again. And again.

 

Eventually you have to hit the POST MESSAGE key, and work with what you have.

 

I estimate that you are now closest to true understanding of what I propose... but still not there.

 

I don't care to discuss it further, (and truth be known, have not for some time), but I am always ready to answer more questions or discuss. I feel that since I started it, it's not right to duck out... and who knows... someone might finally "get it" if I eventually say the right thing.

 

One never knows.

[SpiffJr]

I understand that, but you gave a specific example of leaving behind a dollar or a penlight and taking the low value stuff out. I would still object to this.

 

My scenario...

 

I answered your scenario, even though you created yours far after I created mine. Yet I believe that you never actually answered mine.

 

Would you do me the favor?

 

Here is the scenario:

 

I see in a cache items that have been in the cache for, apparently, a very long time... that have been handled, set in the dirt, stepped on, scratched, broken, and otherwise destroyed by cachers over many many visits. Their value has been CHANGING over time to where the original person that valued it when they left it might not care to have it anymore.

 

Half of the stuff in the cache has degraded to this point.

 

It is a picture of neglect.

 

Now... I decide to take this "trashed" half of the cache as a "cache angel", and leave a dollar bill, with the intent of throwing out the stuff I traded for.

 

There is no actual intent to trade. The intent is to clean. A trade happens only to cover my butt, adhering to basic game 'rules'.

 

Thumbs up?

 

Thumbs down?

 

Thanks!

 

(amazingly, of all of the people that have been through here, I think only three have attempted to address this scenario, with others writing message after message after message instead. I find that truly interesting.)

 

PS, there are many "key" words: CHANGING, degraded, half, neglect, "trashed" (as opposed to "trash", subtle but very profound difference), dollar, intent, clean. They work together, as a team, and are profound in ways that greatly transend their individual meaning.

Edited January 4, 2005 by SpiffJr

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Dang.... thought I could stay out of it, but I just can't.

 

Here's MY new policy:

 

"Do not remove ANYthing from the cache without trading". I don't care WHAT it is ... an old wrapper, chewed gum, whatever -- LEAVE it and tell ME about it -- I'll go get it. I simply cannot trust people to understand the intent of the game the way I see it and I deserve ownership of the game pieces I create and control. As you do yours.

 

My former belief was that folks had the common sense to make the distinction and played the game in the spirit of respect. Apparently fulcrum's razor is in full effect and we can split, split, split hairs, distinctions and terms until the cows come home.

 

So.... my view has become even MORE protective of my caches. This way, I'll avoid cache "editors" from roaming the woods to "clean" my caches in the name of "bettering" the game.

 

I'm one of the people that answered your scenario above, but the discussion does not seem to be moving in an even slightly linear fashion.

 

Leave my half-chewed army man alone

Leave my filthy bouncy balls where they are (isn't that an AC/DC song?)

Leave the gun wrappers and the soggy business card

 

Clean-up anywhere you want AROUND the cache

Trade for any of the above and more