+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Did I commit a crime by paying 30US$ to Groundspeak? Yesterday the first "no members" cache was hidden in Europe. The owner states that he will delete any log from a premium member and says, that he will hide a new "no members" cache for every new MOC. Your opinion? Quote Link to comment
+southdeltan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 My opinion is that stupid logging requirements are.. well... stupid. If the cache was near me, and I found it, I would log it. If he deleted it, I would relog it. southdeltan Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I'd say he has his work cut out for him. Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Oh man, this is going to be a FUN discussion. I see no problem with a no-members cache... but what if I find it, log it, THEN become a member? Anyone got a link to it? Pan Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache? Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 If their account is upgraded to a premium member they might have some self-loathing issues. Sounds fun. Maybe they'd go insane and change the cache to an MO that only non-members can log. The Catch 22 Cache. Quote Link to comment
+Lemon Fresh Dog Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 See -- that cache makes a lot of sense. Maybe it will encourage even more folks to become non-members. This will allow the website to be less "commercial". Maybe if we are lucky enough, it will become so non-commercial that it won't be able to pay it's bills or upgrade equipment as the hobby grows. Then, the site will collapse completely -- and we can all ...... oh oh.... (note: for those of you that missed it -- the sarcasm was intended to be venomous) Quote Link to comment
+southdeltan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Here's the cache in question: No Members Please sd Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Great idea! Just give him a one month membership for free and look what happens. Caches with silly logging requierements seem to become a problem. What comes up next? To get permission to log the cache you have to color your hair green and take a foto of yourself together with the cache? Is there a way to stop "no members" cache? MOCs are a way to say "thank you" to those who support geocaching.com. "no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members. Quote Link to comment
+southdeltan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Here's the cache in question: No Members Please sd Oh yea, hope you read German... sd Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 "no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members. Are you saying that people will stop paying (or not start paying) because they want to log one cache? Really? Is that your argument? Or is it about a concern for a precedent being set? The landmark non-member cache that spawned an epidemic. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Is there a way to stop "no members" cache? MOCs are a way to say "thank you" to those who support geocaching.com. "no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members. Let the guy make his own bed. If he wants to expend effort to make his point, what do we care. (and yes, I wouldn't care if it was a local cache to me.) I'd still go sign the logbook. Oh, and start up a bunch of MOCs Edited January 11, 2005 by BlueDeuce Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ... and says, that he will hide a new "no members" cache for every new MOC... For EVERY MOC cache, ANYWHERE? It seems like he'd have a lot to do. What is the average amount of MOCs released in the world on any given week? Is that information available? Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Of course its more about a concern for a precedent being set. Not only regarding "no members" caches but all the other silly logging requirements. Quote Link to comment
tubby and Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 It may just add to the proliferation of sock-puppets for those members that are Smiley-Addicts. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Basically same thing as with WH's cache the other day. I'd find it. The coords are on the website, the box is in the woods, I'm going for it. I'm going to sign the log. I'm gonna take lots of pics, including pics of my log. He can't take away the fact that I found it, all he can deprive me of is a smiley. No big deal to me, personally. If the locals like it that way, no big deal, if peer pressure kicks in hard and he relents, then I'll log my find, no big deal either. PS. As a matter of personal preference, I don't really care for logging restrictions on a cache, but I enjoy a nice hike, and I enjoy a well placed cache, so those 2 factors can overcome my general dislike for a logging restriction. Quote Link to comment
uperdooper Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 it sounds like a childish idea. i am not calling the cacher childish. just the idea. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Here's the cache in question: No Members Please sd Oh yea, hope you read German... sd If you cant read German, here's a rough translation. Quote Link to comment
+Sparrowhawk Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache? Good one, dude! Then again... that could start a trend. If he gets a free membership this way, I can go "Hmmmm... so that's how I can get a free..." Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Of course its more about a concern for a precedent being set. Not only regarding "no members" caches but all the other silly logging requirements. I guess I just don't understand how non-member caches (or any other logging requirements) will "decrease the number of paying members." But, then again, I prescribe to the if-you-don't-like-it-don't-log-it theory of caching. Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 If you cant read German, here's a rough translation. Rough? That translation is 15 miles of bad road. Quote Link to comment
WH Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Sounds alot like the controversy that erupted over my "Notes Only" cache (which has since been changed) in this thread and part deux here. Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 But you don't delete "found it" logs!? Quote Link to comment
WH Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) But you don't delete "found it" logs!? In the first iteration I did. It was a strict notes only cache. I deleted find logs. I have since updated the cache description to what you now see. *edited for typos Edited January 11, 2005 by WH Quote Link to comment
+tobsas Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 radioscout, you made this here very biased and I'm very disapointed about it. You should have offered further informations about the situation in Germany and should have given a translation of the description, IMO. The german comunity is in wide parts against MOCs, there have been several threads about this issue in the german subforum. Only a very small part of german cachers support them, some have no opinion and the big majority is against them. So, one MOC popped out of the nowhere in Berlin some days ago. The No-Member-Cache (I'll call it Anti-MOC) is the reaction to this one and you can find in the description that the cache will be open to everybody as soon as the MOC is open to everybody. That means that Berlin will have two instead of one new cache as soon as the MOC isn't MO anymore. As long as it's a MOC, PMs will have one cache and non-PMs will have one. The description describes it as to keep in balance and I agree with that. The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups. I see us as a great comunity and we shouldn't draw any lines. I don't like requirements to log, but as soon as there are no requirments to log a former-MOC, there will be no requirements to log the Anti-MOC. I think it's a win-win situation right now for all the cachers: As soon as "MO" is lifted on the one cache, the non-MO will be lifted and everybody has two caches to hunt for. And to answer your question: No, you haven't commited a crime but neither has anybody who hasn't paid. And my I add in general regarding requirements to log a cache: I neither like that you have to place a Travelbug nor that you have to have a certain amount of finds nor that you have to pay for. Greetings, Tobias Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You have to be a member to log your finds online. So is this a no Premium mebers cache? What if your log was deleted then you stop being a premium member, can we have them put our log back for us? The cache is a logistical nightmare. WH's cache was better in it's original incarnation. Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups. Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"? Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache? So when my membership runs out do I place a non members cache and get a free upgrade Appologies, just my English sense of humour. Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Of course not. Just a one month membership to prove this cache "idea" wrong. Quote Link to comment
uperdooper Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 how about this for a cache? i lost a crown on one of my teeth today. that means a week of dental h*ll. i'm going to start a cache for dentally challanged people. you must have proof of extensive dental work performed on yourself or i will delete your log. give me a break. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I've heard it's possible for a non premium member to log a MOC by using a little finesse. Does that mean we have to delete those logs now? Quote Link to comment
+AuntieWeasel Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well, he did say "please". I think I'm with whoever said to find it, take copious pictures of yourself with it (preferably in silly and mocking poses), post them someplace, then not even try to log it. On the other hand, it looks like an urban micro...not exactly my cup of schnapps. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I've got an idea. I see in this thread some people have donated 4 months of premium membership to one lucky person (not yet chosen). Perhaps instead they can break it back down into 4 seperate one month memberships and give them to the first for finders of this cache. Hey, for $3 a person, I bet we could upgrade the first 10-20 finders for a month. Just long enough for their logs to be deleted. Hehehehe. Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I've got an idea. I see in this thread some people have donated 4 months of premium membership to one lucky person (not yet chosen). Perhaps instead they can break it back down into 4 seperate one month memberships and give them to the first for finders of this cache. Hey, for $3 a person, I bet we could upgrade the first 10-20 finders for a month. Just long enough for their logs to be deleted. Hehehehe. Good one! I like it. Not enought to pay though Quote Link to comment
+radioscout Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Does that mean we have to delete those logs now? No? Why? Everyone who found the cache and signed the logbook should be allowed to log the cache. And no one should be allowed to deleted it until it does not contain anything illegal. Quote Link to comment
+tobsas Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups. Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"? Are you serious? The beginning was the MOC. Don't try to mix cause and reaction. However, it's no "war" at all IMO. It's only the attemp to keep caches in an area in balance for everyone, not just increasing the number for the paying people. So I must ask: Why do you try to seperate people? Why do you want to have more caches to hunt for? Why do you want to try to build classes? There are so many ways to support Groundspeak (or any other listing), you really don't need to make a cache MO, esp. if there are a lot of arguments why a MOC isn't increasing the number of paying members. (And IMO it's ridiculous to think that any paying memeber will become non-paying to log a cache he can log as soon as the MOC isn't MO anymore.) However, I will not continue the discussion here which we already had in the german subforum. Greetings, Tobias Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 And no one should be allowed to deleted it until it does not contain anything illegal. Wha..? Quote Link to comment
+Mastifflover Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache? Great idea!! I'll send you the $3 to do it. Quote Link to comment
+welch Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Get rid of the MOCs and go back to hiding caches anyone can find? That or just ignore the caches that are requesting weird and unusual things. Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens. Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"? Are you serious? The beginning was the MOC. Don't try to mix cause and reaction. Hmmm... this seems to me to be a fair point. How are non-MO caches any different from MO caches, with regard to the fact that they exclude certain cachers? But, with that said, isn't this "pushing an agenda" like WH was accused of doing before he was required to alter his cache? Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 So when my membership runs out do I place a non members cache and get a free upgrade Unfortunately you didn't think of it first. Appologies, just my English sense of humour. I enjoy British humour. Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I just hope it doesn't suck. To have such an odd logging requirement and have it suck sends the wrong message. It should be hemorrhaging gold coins or something. Oh, right. You can still go out and find it. Your log will just be deleted. Quote Link to comment
+AuntieWeasel Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I enjoy British humour. For heaven's sake, don't spell it with a "u". It only encourages them to use up more of the earth's dwindling supply of precious vowels. Quote Link to comment
+Mastifflover Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 How are non-MO caches any different from MO caches, with regard to the fact that they exclude certain cachers? The difference is that MOC's are a feature that the website owner has implemented. Placing this cache says that "I am going to use your website to list a cache that excludes your customers, people who have decided with their own free will to help contribute financially to your website." Quote Link to comment
madratdan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Get rid of the MOCs and go back to hiding caches anyone can find? That or just ignore the caches that are requesting weird and unusual things. Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens. Members only caches are one of the selling points to become a member here. No one likes to be excluded. You will never get GC.com to give up that feature. Would you, if it was your site and it was helping to put money in your pocket? I think this Non members only cache idea is a good one, since I'm a non member. If I joined, I would feel it was still a good idea. Fair is fair, isn't it? Or is it? Edited January 11, 2005 by madratdan Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Would you, if it was your site and it was helping to put money in your pocket? You give MO caches far too much credit. There were more practical reasons for the creation of MO caches than filling the coffers of Groundspeak. Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Placing this cache says that "I am going to use your website to list a cache that excludes your customers, people who have decided with their own free will to help contribute financially to your website." If I remember correctly (and I haven't yet researched this) there are approved caches that "excludes [gc.com] customers" by placing restrictions on logging. Although admittedly, I can see how the form of the requirement in this case could be troubling to TPTB. OTOH, I could see how they might feel that they could not care less. Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You give MO caches far too much credit. There were more practical reasons for the creation of MO caches than filling the coffers of Groundspeak. Weeding out the riffraff? Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 There's no specific guideline to exclude a listing (or logging requirement), so for now we'll take a wait and see approach, just like with the "no smiley face" approach for logging on the other listing. Not every "issue" has to have a swift decision. My thought is they'll just PO a bunch of geocachers and they'll get an earful. The point was probably to get a post in the forums to raise folks hackles. I just think its dumb. Quote Link to comment
WH Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 All of my caches start out as MO. I want to give the paying supporters of the website the FTF. After that, I remove the MO restriction. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.