Jump to content

The First "no Members" Cache


Recommended Posts

No, he doesn't. Don't you understand? This cache is not anti-PM. It's anti-MOC. You can be a premium member and not place MOCs.

If it is not againt PM but againt MOC it should exclude those who place MOCs and not those who support geocaching.com.

That's actually not such a bad idea. But in Germany, that would be one person :D

Link to post
So I must ask: Why do you try to seperate people?

 

*snip*

 

However, I will not continue the discussion here which we already had in the german subforum.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

--schnischnaschnappi--

 

If I lived in Germany, I'd log your cache anyway...and I'd hope that lots of other Premium members did the same thing, to keep you very busy.

Well - maybe you realise that you mixed up something :D

 

No Members Please by Gernot90 (GCMFQD)

Link to post
Now, you plan to punish those who are helping this site to stay running? Bad karma....BAD!

No, he doesn't. Don't you understand? This cache is not anti-PM. It's anti-MOC. You can be a premium member and not place MOCs.

Of course I understand. I understand that he is placing caches that PM's can't log. That is punishing someone for being a PM. It IS anti-PM if the rule is that no PM's can log it. Now...don't YOU understand?

 

As a PM, I will eventually place a MOC cache, for those that pay to help run the site. But....not until I have placed 8 or 10 regular caches for EVERYONE. I'm not some sort of PM snob...but a little bonus cache once in a while, for paying members, is a good thing.

Edited by PC Painter
Link to post

To get back to the original subject...

 

Since I refuse to online log MO caches I find, on the basis that they are excluding folks--I applaud this cache!

 

This statement regarding the cache in question amuses me however:

 

Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens.

 

I agree with that sentiment entirely--as expressed about MO caches ESPECIALLY!

 

(I'm surprised at the furor over this cache--those expressing offense yet supporting MO caches should take a closer look at their hypocrisy IMO...)

 

Just because Groundspeak, Inc. has chosen to offer an automatic means to exclude certain geocachers from logging a cache doesn't obviate an individual's choice to do so manually!

 

Enjoy (regardless),

 

Randy

 

(who appreciates balance and ingenuity)

Link to post

WOW! I can't believe the amount of energy that has gone into this thread. Personally, if it were up to me, there would be a lot more MOCs out there.

 

This website is very expensive to develop and maintain and the cost of membership goes to defray those expenses. Without this website, Geocaching would not exist.

 

I think that MOCs are a nice benefit to those of us who will fork over the $30 a year to support the sport. More people should consider upgrading their membership - if for no other reason than to contribute your fair share.

 

Jim

Link to post
Now, you plan to punish those who are helping this site to stay running? Bad karma....BAD!

No, he doesn't. Don't you understand? This cache is not anti-PM. It's anti-MOC. You can be a premium member and not place MOCs.

Of course I understand. I understand that he is placing caches that PM's can't log. That is punishing someone for being a PM. Now...don't YOU understand?

Exactly. Being a premium member does not mean you must place a MOC.

 

The statement "You can be a premium member and not place members only caches" is a bit biased. It makes it seem like most PM's place MOC. In my area this is not the case. I know MANY PM's but in the 2 years I've been around there have only been 2 MOC's and both were shortlived.

 

I'm a premium member and I've never placed a MOC. Why would you punish somebody like me?

 

If he truly want's it to be anti-MOC - then people that own MOC's shouldn't be allowed to log a find on his cache.

 

Of course, he could just get rid of his stupid logging requirement. But that's another story....

 

sd

Link to post
I understand that he is placing caches that PM's can't log. That is punishing someone for being a PM. It IS anti-PM if the rule is that no PM's can log it.

First, Gernot90 has placed a single cache of that type.

 

Second, he will immediately change the cache type if the MOC cache in Berlin becomes a normal cache.

 

Third, what Gernot90 wished to exclude were logs of type "found it". In the German geocaching community the phrase "to log a cache" (in German "einen Cache loggen") is quite often used in the sense of logging a "found it".

 

Fourth, I have not come across a single complaint by a PM who is likely to go to visit Gernot's cache in the near future. So far only people living quite far from Berlin have complained. There are so many caches available in the Berlin area that regardless of the status of Gernot's cache, his cache will not be the typical target for cachers visiting Berlin. Consequently, it is a matter that mainly concerns the local community and they do not complain at all, regardless of whether they are PMs or not.

 

Fifth, let me repeat again that placing a MOC means different things in different areas - in Germany the majority of cachers does not view MOCs as bonus for PMs, but as a bad idea. This holds regardless of the member status.

 

Cezanne

Link to post
Get rid of the MOCs and go back to hiding caches anyone can find?  :D

 

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? B)

Yes I would, Or actually I would never have implemented MOCs like they are. But Im not in charge, so we don't do things my way.

 

B)

Link to post
Yes I would, Or actually I would never have implemented MOCs like they are. But Im not in charge, so we don't do things my way.

I'm curious. How would you have implemented them?

I'm curious, what was the original goal/idea of MOCs?

 

I'm not against the idea of being able to hide cache data, per se. I am curious about the original intent.

Link to post
Maybe some banks charge for a money transfer but inside Euroland they are not allowed to charge more for a transfer inside Euroland than for a transfer inside the country.

Was wat ik zei :D

 

Of course, if you do set up a Euroland account, you'll hit trouble from the UK (which is either the #1 or #2 GC country in Europe, depending on how you measure it), in one of two ways:

 

- Half the UK is against the Euro and will accuse Groundspeak of being a "Trojan Horse" for the evil Eurocrats from Brussels

- The other half will moan (rightly) that their bank will charge them 30 Euros for a 25 Euro transaction (UK banks are notorious for that sort of thing)

- And the third half will complain that the exchange rate isn't fixed B)

Link to post

I don't know what percentage of members are premium members but I estimate that about 20% are (probably less in Germany). So think of it: one MOC excludes 80% of the cachers from finding and logging a cache. One anti-MOC excludes only 20%. So what's the big deal? MOCs are still a lot more exclusive (or exclusionary? is there such a word?).

Link to post
Yes I would, Or actually I would never have implemented MOCs like they are. But Im not in charge, so we don't do things my way.

I'm curious. How would you have implemented them?

I'm curious, what was the original goal/idea of MOCs?

 

I'm not against the idea of being able to hide cache data, per se. I am curious about the original intent.

The original intent was to fulfill requests being made by the geocaching community. It was just a way to keep some caches from being plundered by people that could access the site information who enjoy targeting geocachers and plundering their caches.

Link to post
Of course, if you do set up a Euroland account, you'll hit trouble from the UK (which is either the #1 or #2 GC country in Europe, depending on how you measure it), ...

Nick, your 150% reasons are funny, but are you seriously comparing the UK to Germany with regard to the EURO?!? Shouldn't the UK be compared to the EMU/EURO zone. If one does so, it is without any doubt who has more caches and cachers.

 

BS/2

 

P.S. Besides that, there's no one speaking up against a bank acccount on the island, anyway..

Link to post
You know, the person who made the MOC did so for a reason. Do you really think it's fair to them and/or Groundspeak to post methods of circumventing that?

I think the more people you tell about the loop holes the sooner they will eventually get closed.

Link to post
How would you have implemented them?

As Member-Only-Caches, not as Premium-Member-Only-Caches

I didn't ask you. I asked welch. And the creation of an account only cache doesn't address the original reason for the implementation of them. I can create a throwaway account for the purpose of using geocaching.com if I wanted.

 

I would forgive CoyoteRed if not for the fact that he should know better than to ask a question that could be quickly found through a simple search. This was my response to a 2002 topic and I have nothing further to add.

Link to post
I think that MOCs are a nice benefit to those of us who will fork over the $30 a year to support the sport.

Feasible maps for Europe, correct umlauts in pocket queries, a usable payment system, better usability of the website and a better uptime would be far greater benefits than an elitist cache blocking the to-do-list.

Link to post
I think that MOCs are a nice benefit to those of us who will fork over the $30 a year to support the sport.

Feasible maps for Europe, correct umlauts in pocket queries, a usable payment system, better usability of the website and a better uptime would be far greater benefits than an elitist cache blocking the to-do-list.

Using other feature complaints is irrelevant to the MOC issue. You're trying to shoot the messenger here. It was a feature we implemented as requested by geocachers. It was a straightforward implementation and an effective tool for the major reason it was implemented.

 

If you perceive that a cache owner is elitist, provide them feedback about their cache. Don't kill the messenger. We don't play police for logging requirements either, no matter how unfortunate they may be.

Link to post
I think the more people you tell about the loop holes the sooner they will eventually get closed.

welch,

 

I am honestly curious as to how you would have implemented MOC. From your last post I assume you're still reading this thread. I look forward to reading your better suggestion.

Link to post

I've never placed a MOC. I have however switched a number of standard caches to MOC in times of cache maggot influx.

 

Am I being exclusionary? I'm certainly excluding cache maggots from seeing my cache listing. I may be excluding a regular member from seeing it listed also, an unfortunate side effect.

 

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. MOC's are few and far between.

 

Heres an analogy to ponder.

 

A cacher with a substandard IQ just can't figure out puzzle caches. By placing a puzzle cache, you therefor are excluding this unfortunate cacher. Should this cacher then place anti-puzzle caches in retaliation, deleting any found logs of cachers that have ever placed a puzzle cache?

 

Scuba caches are similarly exclusionary, as are 4X4 caches. Just because I drive a geo metro, why should someone be allowed to place a cache I can't get to?

 

Perhaps an anti 4X4 cache is in order......

Link to post
Yes I would, Or actually I would never have implemented MOCs like they are. But Im not in charge, so we don't do things my way.

I'm curious. How would you have implemented them?

I'm curious, what was the original goal/idea of MOCs?

 

I'm not against the idea of being able to hide cache data, per se. I am curious about the original intent.

The original intent was to fulfill requests being made by the geocaching community. It was just a way to keep some caches from being plundered by people that could access the site information who enjoy targeting geocachers and plundering their caches.

If that's the case, I'm sure in hindsight many of us would have rather a different approach had been taken.

 

Knowing that no plunder prevention scheme is foolproof, it could be argued $3 stood in the way for your cache being plundered if the plunderer so desired. Time and effort is a lot more expensive than $3. A tiered system where a user has to reach a certain level would probably slow a plunder down further.

 

What would the first level be? I'd say a simple "must be signed on" would be the first level above "fully open." At least then there could be some tracking. Sure, easily foiled, but this is minimum protection.

 

The second could be much have been a member for x time, found x number of caches, and have placed (and thus meaning having to have some sort of investment in the sport) x number of found* caches. It could be 3 months, 50 finds, and a single approved placement.

 

Even if you held a paid membership, you still wouldn't have access until the minimum level is reached.

 

With this system in place, it would be trivial during active plundering to elevate all caches to a certain level locally for a period of time. This could help stop plundering by someone not signed in--and hopefully not have a bunch of caches printed out--and not inconvenience cachers outside that area.

 

This is just something rough, so I'm sure some tweaks would have to be made, but I see it as a better system for preventing plundering than the contentious MOC system we have today.

 

* by a second tier member in good standing.

Link to post
Nick, your 150% reasons are funny, but are you seriously comparing the UK to Germany with regard to the EURO?!? Shouldn't the UK be compared to the EMU/EURO zone. If one does so, it is without any doubt who has more caches and cachers.

Sorry for any confusion - my intention was to compare them in terms of cache numbers. From the last time I checked B**ley (another another story), both UK and Germany has around 8000, I think.

 

In those terms, you could well be right, it might be better to consider Euroland as one caching location. Although, last time I checked (which was a week ago, when I had to visit each of them to publicise my upcoming event), there were still sites called geocaching.de, geocaching.be, geocaching.nl, etc. No "geocaching.eu" yet. We still have a long way to go.

 

Of course on a daily basis these distinctions are cheerfully ignored as we drive across our Schengen borders. Unlike, one might add if one were feeling ironic, the area covered by the "German-speaking" forum here, where 1/3 of the countries mentioned in the forum caption haven't quite got the European idea yet either - just try crossing the Swiss border without a passport... :D

 

But all that's another debate B)

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to post
I would forgive CoyoteRed if...

I generally have a problem with coming up with the right keywords to search on. Some kind of mental block, I guess. So, it's becomes an exercise in futility with me.

 

I might have remembered that thread had it not been before my time, though.

Link to post
What would the first level be? I'd say a simple "must be signed on" would be the first level above "fully open." At least then there could be some tracking. Sure, easily foiled, but this is minimum protection.

 

The second could be much have been a member for x time, found x number of caches, and have placed (and thus meaning having to have some sort of investment in the sport) x number of found* caches. It could be 3 months, 50 finds, and a single approved placement.

Sounds pretty elitist.

 

BTW, internally we have discussed a similar additional approach to limiting viewing of caches, but have shelved this option because it is even more elitist than a flat "you have to be a premium member" option for cache owners.

Link to post
This website is very expensive to develop and maintain and the cost of membership goes to defray those expenses. Without this website, Geocaching would not exist.

Without the membership fees, certainly geocaching.com would look something less than it does now - but geocaching itself would still exist, perhaps just spread amongst some of the competing sites.

 

I don't think Gernot90 or any of the other European members participating in this forum are against supporting the website - their comments indicate it's very difficult to do so because of prohibitive costs in Europe. If I was a Groundspeak staff member, I'd be researching how the company could encourage more of these guys to join up - sounds like there's an untapped market there, surely a company would be interested in increasing its revenue base to help fund future expansion. Maybe then, the local opposition to MOCs (which prompted this cache in the first place!!) would gradually decrease.

 

If the company truly wants to promote themselves as supporting players in more than 200 countries (as highlighted on the gc.com front page), then they would do well to provide better support to some of the other 199 countries or so. Maybe Groundspeak hasn't quite reached that point in it's business plan yet.

 

I'm personally glad to see a few more international players on the forum here ... I think it's dramatically improved the breadth of discussion. Without a broad geographic representation of players on the forum discussing the future direction of the sport/hobby, you're only catering to a small and vocal minority ... and ultimately discriminating against the remainder, as their voices aren't heard with the same effect.

Link to post
If that's the case, I'm sure in hindsight many of us would have rather a different approach had been taken.

I'll tell you it is pretty darn effective requested feature. Did I mention it was a requested feature? If not, it was a requested feature.

Link to post
This statement regarding the cache in question amuses me however:

 

Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens.

 

I agree with that sentiment entirely--as expressed about MO caches ESPECIALLY!

Does it amuse you because you think I was talking about one group (or the other)? :D

Link to post
Sounds pretty elitist.

Well, I guess if a scheme to prevent your cache from being stolen is "elitist" then I guess so.

 

Hmmm, what does that say for "private caches?"

 

Plus, if I were to be elitist, I think I'd rather base that test on someone's commitment and experience, than the fact they PayPal'ed you $3.

 

EDIT: add last line.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to post
Heres an analogy to ponder.

Thing is we're talking two different things. One is the ability to find the cache, the other is the ability to log the cache.

 

The issues get mixed up a lot.

Not totally true. The cache in question was placed in retaliation of a MOC, that prevents a non premium member from finding it.

 

A scuba cache works the same way. Cachers without scuba gear and training are prevented from finding it.

 

An Antiscuba cache would prohibit logs from anyone that has ever placed a scuba cache.

Link to post
If that's the case, I'm sure in hindsight many of us would have rather a different approach had been taken.

I'll tell you it is pretty darn effective requested feature. Did I mention it was a requested feature? If not, it was a requested feature.

Maybe so, but it could also be said that it's a pretty darn contentious requested feature, too! Wouldn't you say?

Link to post
So I must ask: Why do you try to seperate people?

 

*snip*

 

However, I will not continue the discussion here which we already had in the german subforum.

Why? Because, the people that support this site with their money, deserve to get some special benefits. If not for money coming in, this site would cease to exist. Now, you plan to punish those who are helping this site to stay running? Bad karma....BAD!

I don't see that I'm "punishing" anybody if I would place an Anti-MOC. Please note that an Anti-MOC is strictly linked to a MOC and as soon as the MO is lifted, the Anti-MOC will be open to everybody as well. So I only make the offer that there will be two caches available for everybody instead of one cache for PMs and one for non-PMs. And I don't see a punishment in the context with geocaching anyway as it's a hobby for me and not a law or anything which would require "punishments". You have the opinion that you would like benefits from the 30$ and it's fine with me, but I strongly disagree that listing a cache description should be a benefit. Viewing the description and the possibilitie to log should be free IMO.

 

Oh...and you will not discuss this any further?

English is not my first language, so may be I couldn't express exactly what I meant. But I have also the impression that you snipped too much. However, may I explain what I meant: The word "we" should have draw the line between radioscout and me. All I wanted to say was that I don't discuss the same thing in a foreign language for both of us again with him which we already discussed in german. If I would have liked to express what you understood, I would have written "However, I will not continue the discussion." At this point if you would have read pages two and three of this thread prioir to posting you might have already realized that I contributed to the discussion later on as well and your interpretation of my wording can't be correct. Everything you read into my posting like "only German opinions [are] of value" and a like are obviously ridicilous. Again, I don't understand why people try to bring the natinal issue in this context which is just not there.

 

You're being childish, and reactionary, by punishing the paying members of this site, that help keep it running for those who won't or cannot afford it.

Again, I do not punish anybody. I just try to reclaim the balance which a PM disturbed by placing a MOC for an exclusive part of our comunity. I believe that anybody should be allowed to view the description of a cache and not only thos who have paid. There are so many ways to support this or any other site that a MOC is only to make heat in the forums as this thread proves.

 

If I lived in Germany, I'd log your cache anyway...and I'd hope that lots of other Premium members did the same thing, to keep you very busy. I would also make sure to place lots of MOC's, and encourage other local paying members to do the same. Not exactly the result of bringing the community back together....is it?

Well, I'm glad that the wide majority of cachers in Germany have another opinion regardles if they pay here or not. And no, it's not my fault that the comunity is seperated into parts, if you or any other behaves the way you described. I did not start to devide our comunity with restrictions. (IMO with placing a MOC you are dividing us - at least if you don't lift the MO after the first x finds which I don't care.) And I can't imagine a reason why somebody would like to seperate us into groups but well, if you want to do it this way, you're free to do it as long as you're within the guidelines like I remain inside the guidelines. I think it would be very sad, but may be I miss something. But you would be right that the comunity would not* be re-united - honestly, is this a goal you would like to reach?

However, probably the majority of cachers would name both of us "childish" or worse if we would act in the way you described. Again, my goal is no "war" but just to have the same amount of caches for everybody. But I have to admit that radioscouts argument makes sense and may be the rule should be cut down to only PMs who host the MOC, but I have to overthink that further.

 

Jeremy, my answer to your question would be, probably to no ones surprise, that I wouldn't have made MOCs available at all. Maybe the feature to see who is watching the cache like it's possible at MOCs right now but not the concept to keep cache descriptions to a subset group. But well, you haven't asked me.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

 

* edit

Edited by tobsas
Link to post
Maybe so, but it could also be said that it's a pretty darn contentious requested feature, too! Wouldn't you say?

No doubt. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist either. There are plenty of other contentious issues that occur in the course of running a successful web site like geocaching.com. It doesn't mean you need to shy away from a feature implementation or take the path of least resistance.

 

Your idea about creating hurdles for someone to jump in order to see your cache listing is complicated and easily circumvented. A decision to combat cache theft through MOC was carefully thought out and the feature you suggested was suggested - however the black hat was put on and there were too many loopholes to make it realistic as an approach. The premium membership approach has been extremely effective and by far has been the most effective solution.

 

If you think you have the start of a new idea for reducing cache theft, post it in another topic and have people kick holes in it. If you put it in the Geocaching.com section of the site I'll monitor it.

 

This topic was originally about the specific cache listing where there are logging requirements that involve not being a premium member. The topic should go back to the OP. I'm stepping out of the topic and will monitor my Geocaching.com discussion area. Welch, please post your suggestions on your own theory for implementing MOC there.

Link to post

Welch,

The problem with your suggestion is it doesn't do anything to stop cache maggots. Anyone can create a bogus account. What good is it going to do me to know which bogus account was the last to view my cache before it was ripped off?

 

I'd rather the maggot didn't even see the listing. And for the maggots that shell out the $3.00, at least they are traceable by Groundspeak.

Link to post
I don't think Gernot90 or any of the other European members participating in this forum are against supporting the website - their comments indicate it's very difficult to do so because of prohibitive costs in Europe.

I'm in Europe (if you call the UK Europe). I had no difficulty whatever in paying my membership fee. Frankly, I think this is just an excuse.

 

I've spent loads of money pursuing this hobby: $30 a year is peanuts in comparison, and the site gives tremendous value for money.

 

And maybe if everyone paid the fee the site would be even better and there'd be no argument about MOCs. :D

Link to post
I don't think Gernot90 or any of the other European members participating in this forum are against supporting the website - their comments indicate it's very difficult to do so because of prohibitive costs in Europe.

I'm in Europe (if you call the UK Europe). I had no difficulty whatever in paying my membership fee. Frankly, I think this is just an excuse.

Your call, but Gernot90 was specifically talking about his situation inside the EU. AFAIK, the UK hasn't yet joined the EU, so perhaps you're not facing the same hurdles.

 

A couple of posters mentioned they'd be up for bank fees equivalent to the membership fee if they tried to join ... would you have thought twice if you'd have to pony up another 20-30 quid to the banks? We spent 12 months living in the UK in 1999-2000, and we certainly would have.

 

Edit - currency conversion!

Edited by Slider & Smurf
Link to post

Yes, one post at a time :D

 

And I did. I'm also sure you will, if you haven't already, that just making them viewable for anyone with an account will let anyone get a throw away account and view the pages. Thats true, but how is this different than getting a throwaway and getting it PM? Yes, you'll ban sock puppets, people that say they damage caches, and I would assume anyone that has pretty cleary stolen a cache, but thats rare isn't it? Most caches that get pludered are are mystery about who done it.

 

In many cases, such as mine, we had a local that was targeting caches. I had a number stolen by this maggot. Once I switched my caches to MOC, not a single cache of mine has gone missing. Other local cachers continue to have theirs stolen.

 

In this instance, the MOC feature solved my problem. The level of anonimity of a throwaway account appeals to maggots. The process of registering, then paying for a PM takes away most of that anonimity.

 

MOC's serve the purpose they were designed for. I for one am happy to have such a tool in times of need.

Link to post

This idea of non-members only caches is a bad idea as far as geocaching goes.

 

Just last week there was a thread over locationless caches - how some owners are a stickler for details regarding logging of a find. Most of the arguements came back to one basic premise: It's up to the cache owner to decide.

 

Now this incident shows up, causing a furor because it is a non-Members only cache. This is an outage over what the cache owner has decided to do to his cache. In fact some of those that are outraged on this matter are the same people who took the stand just only last week, "If you don't like the conditions outlined by the owner, just don't do the cache".

 

Can't we all just get along? (Sorry I couldn't resist).

Link to post

Wow, this is great. Some guy puts out a cache with logging requirements that are a mild protest. Somebody else starts a "bitch session" here about it and eveybody gets carried away. Looks to me like his protest cache worked quite well.

 

The only problem I have is I didn't think of it first.....

Link to post
I find that Visa/MC are more than happy to move money around the planet for me at very reasonable rates.

Indeed, but you might want to scroll up a page or so to see the discussion about credit cards; in many European countries (for example, Germany, Netherlands, and others), amazing as it may seem to the average US/UK resident, most of the population manages just fine - even with online shopping - without a "credit" (etc) card, because their country has some other payment network which works very well. As a result (?), more or less all Europeans have to pay for their Visa/MC cards, and even if they're "only" debit cards this can run €40-60 a year or more.

 

It's not clear (I think I've been on both sides of this debate in the last two pages !) whether Groundspeak can provide a universal workaround for this which would satisfy all countries. For example, there are plenty of people in the UK and (even more so) France, who won't use their credit card online, because they think it isn't secure. As far as I'm concerned they are completely wrong - you're much more likely to be a victim of card fraud if you use it in a shop - but that's their perception. So even if there were a bank account aimed at German/Dutch premium members, you might have the Brits, French (if there were any French GCers, ha), etc, who have a card but don't want to use it, complaining as well.

 

My personal view is that if you're going to be at all active on the Internet, a credit card is no longer a luxury status symbol. But then my native language is English, I can afford the price of a Visa card, I live in France where cards are also pretty much universal, I do a fair amount of online purchasing from all over the world, and I participate in the international GC community. I'm sure that if I was from Munich, spoke German 99% of the time, never bought obscure auto accessories from Japan, and only usually went caching within a 50km radius of my house, I would have a different view <_<. (I just reread this last sentence and if it sounds patronising, that was absolutely not my intention...)

 

Nick

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...