The First "no Members" Cache

Posted January 13, 2005 · January 13, 2005

What does accessibility to payment types have to do with logging requirements?

Posted January 13, 2005 · January 13, 2005

What does accessibility to payment types have to do with logging requirements?

Well, when you're on to page 5 of a thread, it gets like an episode of Friends, there can be several storylines running... but the debate about whether people would be more likely to sign up for premium membership in Europe if it were easier to pay, seems to have got mixed up in here somewhere. That's a sidetrack of the MOC-cache topic, I agree. Maybe if I shut up about it, the thread will return to the [Anti-]MOC issue.

Posted January 13, 2005 · January 13, 2005

What does accessibility to payment types have to do with logging requirements?

The start of the thread was the Anti-MOC and the MOC in Berlin. The owner of the MOC wrote in the cache description, that with this cache he wants people to become PMs. AFAIK it is necessary to do some payment to become a PM. When the payment is so difficult and/or expensive, a lot of people do not become PMs. As long as the payment is not easier, I canot become a PM and canot read the MOC-description.

I and with me many other cachers want to pay the same price if they receive the same service like people in the US. I suppose European Geocachers sit on at least USD 10.000 they would pay with joy if they would receive the same service like people in the US do. Groundspeak could have this money but I wonder if they want it.

Edit: Inserted first sentence and typo

Edited January 13, 2005 by Schnüffelstück

Posted January 13, 2005 · January 13, 2005

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.

You're right: I am amazed. Thanks for educating me.

Credit cards are such a way of life here in the UK that I can't conceive how anyone could survive without one. How does one buy petrol for the car, the weekly shopping, mail order goods etc etc?

However, interested though I am in the answers, best not post here as we seem to be straying further and further from the topic.

Posted January 14, 2005 · January 14, 2005

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.

You're right: I am amazed. Thanks for educating me.

Credit cards are such a way of life here in the UK that I can't conceive how anyone could survive without one. How does one buy petrol for the car, the weekly shopping, mail order goods etc etc?

However, interested though I am in the answers, best not post here as we seem to be straying further and further from the topic.

In Canada, I pay for virtually everything with a debit card. In Canada it is virtually impossible these days to find a business that does not accept bank debit cards. Using a credit card is a last resort form of payment for me although I find them an effective tool for negotiating a lower price if I pay cash, expecially with smaller vendors who pay a higher transaction fee than bigger stores.

Posted January 14, 2005 · January 14, 2005

Who gives a crap if someone deletes a log. I know how many caches I have found and that's all that matters. maybe someone will eventually delete his cache!

Posted January 14, 2005 · January 14, 2005

As it seems that some of the arguments in this discussion have turned in to "How-expencive-it-is-to-make-a-payment-abroad-via-Internet" - I would like to share some info.

I used PayPal to pay my Premium Membership fee.

You can pay your PM fee using PayPal (, without having or using a credit card).

If you don`t like your bank`s fees for International transfers, here is a short how-to-guide:

1) You can get your own Paypal-account - for FREE.

2) You can transfer money to your PayPal-account via a local (national) bank account. This works in the same way you pay your bills, your local bank will charge the same cost as paying a bill.

(You will find your national PayPal bank account number in your login-page.)

3) A few days later the amount is ready to use.

4) You can now make your payment (from your PayPal-account) to Groundspeek - for FREE.

Be adviced! If you transfer money directly to PayPal from your Credit/Debit-card international fees may be charged by the card-institution.

As an extra service for you Germans, here is a direct link in German

(others; delete "/de" for the English version):

https://www.paypal.com/de

Edited January 14, 2005 by reser

Posted January 14, 2005 · January 14, 2005

In Canada, I pay for virtually everything with a debit card.... Using a credit card is a last resort form of payment for me

Just to clarify, in my posts for "credit cards" read "credit and/or debit cards".

In the UK there's little difference between the two as a form of payment. I always pay by credit card because it costs me nothing and gives me up to two months to pay the bill. If I paid by debit card my bank account would be debited immediately.

Posted January 29, 2005 · January 29, 2005

If you cant read German, here's a rough translation.

Rough? That translation is 15 miles of bad road.

I know german quite good and I can tell you that the "rough translation" is not even close to the road <_< ,

it's way off road!

Edited January 29, 2005 by Gavia

Posted January 29, 2005 · January 29, 2005

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?).

I love this logical reasoning! <_<

Posted January 30, 2005 · January 30, 2005

If you cant read German, here's a rough translation.

Rough? That translation is 15 miles of bad road.

After which I had loosely lifted the Goerlitzer park and I had opened myself over the playground of my childhood

Posted January 30, 2005 · January 30, 2005

I think I'll take your "not for members" cache and put it into another cache. Then we can all log both from one cache.

Posted February 2, 2005 · February 2, 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.

Yes I hate this "silly logging requirement", too!!! For example to pay 30US$ to log a cache!!!

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

My thoughts are

since none of us are in Germany, we have no clue of the underlying reasons for their aversion to MO caches. They may have some valid reasons for their feelings.

I just hope that all those who are dead set against membership remember thet without member support, the website would probably not stay afloat

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

I think it's remarkable how many people use this website and are dead set against paying a few bucks a month to do it. That's what allows the site to keep putting features in place that you ask for, it allows for the tremendous amount of storage required and many other things. People don't seem to complain about $50 greens fees but $30 a year is so unreasonable to them. I believe GC is generous to let non-members use it at all.

This is a classic "something for nothing" attitude that prevails, apparently worldwide, today.

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

This is a classic "something for nothing" attitude that prevails, apparently worldwide, today.

Have you read this thread? I don't think so or you're ignoring many postings. :-(

It's not getting true if it's repeated.

Greetings,

Tobias

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

Will Dell let you use a computer but not buy it?

Can you go to the store or restaraunt and eat a meal without paying?

Tell the power company it's against your principles to pay for electricity? Tell them you're just trying it out?!

Groundspeak needs no advice from me, but I will offer some anyway: Let folks access listings free for 90 days, after that you join and pay or go away!

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

Have you read this thread? I don't think so or you're ignoring many postings. :-(
It's not getting true if it's repeated.

No, it's true because it's true.

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

If I find a cache and my entry is deleted -- that is the right of the owner -- they have that ability. If, however, they are trying to make a "statement" with their cache I have no time for them and even less respect. To me, having a no-members cache is the same as having a cache with religious material, political material, or other "opinionated" material. What is the point of the cache? To "show" us something we don't know? To "reveal" some anti-wisdom of supporting Groundspeak? To highlight some ficticious "issue"?

All that is accomplished is that one element of the experience is removed. No big deal -- getting a happy face is not the most important element anyways.

My opinion is that the cache is no place to express opinions-- forums are. That said, I'm a member so I likely wouldn't bother with this cache unless it was in an area that I felt like searching. I don't care about numbers and wouldn't log my visit. Maybe I'd make a "statement" and trade-in geocaching logo'd patches, stickers, travel bugs.

I think it speaks volumes for Groundspeak's professionalism to allow this cache to be placed on their site. It amounts to biting the hand that feeds you and Groundspeak is patiently allowing it.

MOC -- a way to reward those that support the site

anti-MOC - a way to reward those that DON'T support the site

See which one makes for a healthier hobby......

Edited February 4, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

Posted February 4, 2005 · February 4, 2005

What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache?

Is that all it takes? Dang, I could have saved 30 bucks! <_<

Posted February 5, 2005 · February 5, 2005

Get out and cache!

Way to many folks get on the soapbox in the forums.

I don't even know why I'm saying anything. Next week it will be something else.

Why you shouldn't use a certain type of this or that and you know what most of these people who don't want to pay to play don't seem to have a clue what caching is about. You pay $100.00 to God knows how much for a GPS unit (notice not GPSr, but I do hate to be poltically incorrect) some of you just for this sport, but you whine and complain about $30 for membership (which has it's privileges I'm told). Those privileges are MOC, PQ's, etc.

PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S DECENT!

GET OFF YOUR BUTT! GO OUT IN THE WOODS! FIND A dadgum BOX AND SIGN THE LOG!

Then sit there and enjoy the surroundings. That's what this is about. If your all about numbers and smileys, go somewhere else. No stay here. There's room for us all. But don't start crap just for the sake of starting crap.

As has been said, if the site didn't get support from a lot of us it probably wouldn't stay afloat. Of course J might be independently wealthy. Not our business. I don't think $30 dollars is to much to pay to enjoy the full benefits of the site. Server space cost money. Electricity to run them cost money. I assume GC.com has payed staff. PAYED STAFF COST #@$%%#% MONEY!

Thanks for letting me rant.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread............

X <_<

Posted February 5, 2005 · February 5, 2005

GET OFF YOUR BUTT! GO OUT IN THE WOODS! FIND A dadgum BOX AND SIGN THE LOG!

I have never in my life used the word or words DADGUM. It really doesn't convey the feelin that "dadgum" does. See they did it again. CENSORSHIP. Help me. I'm being oppressed. The frog is keeping me down. LOL. <_<

Edited February 5, 2005 by Clan X-Man

Posted February 5, 2005 · February 5, 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.

I'll send 60 then he can't maintain it for 2 years!

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

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?

Cute and funny! As a long-term Premium member from a household which supports from two to four Premium memberships at any given moment, and as the owner of many Premium-member only caches (PMOCs), I think this ideal is hilarious and fun! God bless the cache hider for their creativity and humor! What I REALLY like about this idea is that a cache such as this with such special "additional logging requirements" (ALR) will not bother the average cacher (such as myself) at all, but is bound to drive those compulsive cachers -- i.e., the types who feel that they must compulsively find every cache within a hundred mile radius -- totally insane!

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

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.

How fun! You and Jeremy have upped the ante wonderfully and made this proposition even funnier than it was in the first place! Thanks!

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

Just wanted to make a few points on the subject (although that may be plural at this point in the topic ):

1. The Non-Member cache: I'd just wait until my membership ran out... find it... log it... leave it like that for a week or two to make sure he's checked it... preferably others will have found it after me so I've scrolled off-page, so to speak... then renew my membership. Problem solved.

2. The Note-Only cache - It'd annoy me, since it'd throw off stats other than 'found number', and clicking on 'nearest caches to home' would show it. Then again... I have a personal TB that would be logged in/out regardless, so THAT part would be accurate (and has virtually all the same stats). And after that, I could always set that cache to be ignored.

3. To find a Member-Only cache, several people mentioned not wanting to pay $30 to find one. How about 3? That's the price of membership for one month. You don't exactly HAVE to pay for a full year.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Kabuthunk

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

i would simply find it and sign the paper log, then as usual, not log online.

If the owner wants to get an ink eraser and go rub me out, heshe can have at it.

How about a muggles only cache? Anyone who uses the coordinates to find it will be banninated forever. Then they will be muggles.

Or perhaps you could put out a "Groundspeak is evil" cache- just put the cache out and don't tell anybody. That way you (the non-premium member) get what you paid for AND there won't be any need to delete the logs of premium members.

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

Post deleted cuz I'm a goober.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Clan Riffster

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

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?

Cute and funny! As a long-term Premium member from a household which supports from two to four Premium memberships at any given moment, and as the owner of many Premium-member only caches (PMOCs), I think this ideal is hilarious and fun! God bless the cache hider for their creativity and humor! What I REALLY like about this idea is that a cache such as this with such special "additional logging requirements" (ALR) will not bother the average cacher (such as myself) at all, but is bound to drive those compulsive cachers -- i.e., the types who feel that they must compulsively find every cache within a hundred mile radius -- totally insane!

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

"Doh!" <slaps forehead>

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

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?

Cute and funny! As a long-term Premium member from a household which supports from two to four Premium memberships at any given moment, and as the owner of many Premium-member only caches (PMOCs), I think this ideal is hilarious and fun! God bless the cache hider for their creativity and humor! What I REALLY like about this idea is that a cache such as this with such special "additional logging requirements" (ALR) will not bother the average cacher (such as myself) at all, but is bound to drive those compulsive cachers -- i.e., the types who feel that they must compulsively find every cache within a hundred mile radius -- totally insane!

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Just curious but are there a lot more Non-Paying Members Only Caches now? Maybe that was part of the motivation for the Ignore button being added since....

Posted April 21, 2007 · April 21, 2007

If you cant read German, here's a rough translation.

ROTFLMAO!!! Omg, that translation was hysterical. Sorry....giggle....sorry but it was funnier than the "no members" cache. There was something in there about an "elbow around the corner" or something like that.

Anyway, what's even more lame is that it's a log-only cache. I mean, I could see if you were going to make a statement, but at least stash the thing with lots of loot to lure the non-members. Excuse me if I don't hop over to Germany (from the U.S.) to find a cache that I can only log into, but can't log into.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

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?

Cute and funny! As a long-term Premium member from a household which supports from two to four Premium memberships at any given moment, and as the owner of many Premium-member only caches (PMOCs), I think this ideal is hilarious and fun! God bless the cache hider for their creativity and humor! What I REALLY like about this idea is that a cache such as this with such special "additional logging requirements" (ALR) will not bother the average cacher (such as myself) at all, but is bound to drive those compulsive cachers -- i.e., the types who feel that they must compulsively find every cache within a hundred mile radius -- totally insane!

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Yes. It is not normally my wont to resurrect long-dead threads, but, as you likely know, this thread was referenced in a current thread this morning, and when I checked it out, I found the whole concept to be hilarious!

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Yes. It is not normally my wont to resurrect long-dead threads, but, as you likely know, this thread was referenced in a current thread this morning, and when I checked it out, I found the whole concept to be hilarious!

I was the one who made the reference. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the entire geocaching community for being responsible for turning Vinny loose on a two year old dead thread.

It's my fault. I'm very sorry.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Yes. It is not normally my wont to resurrect long-dead threads, but, as you likely know, this thread was referenced in a current thread this morning, and when I checked it out, I found the whole concept to be hilarious!

I was the one who made the reference. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the entire geocaching community for being responsible for turning Vinny loose on a two year old dead thread.

It's my fault. I'm very sorry.

I don't think a verbal apology is enough.

You owe me the 2 hours of my life it took to get through this whole farce of a thread.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

I was the one who made the reference. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the entire geocaching community for being responsible for turning Vinny loose on a two year old dead thread.

It's my fault. I'm very sorry.

I don't think a verbal apology is enough.

You owe me the 2 hours of my life it took to get through this whole farce of a thread.

Fair enough.

I'll go tinker with the Universal Time Clock and see what I can do for you.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

I was the one who made the reference. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the entire geocaching community for being responsible for turning Vinny loose on a two year old dead thread.

It's my fault. I'm very sorry.

I don't think a verbal apology is enough.

You owe me the 2 hours of my life it took to get through this whole farce of a thread.

Fair enough.

I'll go tinker with the Universal Time Clock and see what I can do for you.

Dänke.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Vinny,

Did ya happen to notice that you replied to a thread that has been dead for two years?

Yes. It is not normally my wont to resurrect long-dead threads, but, as you likely know, this thread was referenced in a current thread this morning, and when I checked it out, I found the whole concept to be hilarious!

I was the one who made the reference. And I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the entire geocaching community for being responsible for turning Vinny loose on a two year old dead thread.

It's my fault. I'm very sorry.

Its totawwy twagic. Simpwy tewwibwe.

I have done worse, however. On another forum which will not be named (it had to do with an outdoor adventure sport, however), in 2004 stumbled upon a forum thread which had been last active in the year 803 AD, and I resurrected it. I never lived that one down. The thread, by the way, was about the building of Datong Square in the southwestern Nan'an region of China in the 19th year of Emperor Zhengyuan's reign in the Tang Dynasty (803 A.D, and about how the construction work was threatened by a massive cloud of volcanic ash; the forum members had been debating where the origin of the volcanic eruption was located. Anyway, I took a lot of razzing for resurrecting a 1,201 year-old thread, one of the oldest on the Internet!

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

... 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?

This is highly entertaining! I'm not a member yet because I don't have all my paperless stuff ready to go yet. I'm hoping to get my PDA situation resolved in the next week or so...

Maybe I'm mistakin', being new and all, but I don't think non-members can see MOCs. Is that correct? If that's true, how would this person even know if there's a new MOC??

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Mocs show up on all the lists, but you can't open the pages unless u r a paying member.

Vinny, your apology is OBVIOUSLY not enough! You must be FIRED. You must be BLACKBALLED! (are we still allowed to use THAT expression?). You must be PUNISHED!

You must NEVER be allowed to post again. EVER ANYWHERE.

The Noive!

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Whew!!! Took me quite awhile to read through all five pages on this topic. Now, many of you know my stand on MOC's from prior threads about them, so I won't repeat myself (much, anyway ), but I've been laughing the entire time I've been reading this thread.

I'm hearing things from PMs like: This anti-MOC cache "divides" the geocaching community, which is wrong. Or this anti-MOC cache unfairly excludes some cachers based on nothing more than their ability/desire to pay Groundspeak a fee, which is wrong. Or it punishes cachers who support the site (in a very specific way), which is wrong...

The hypocrisy is astounding. Most, if not all, of those arguments can and have been used to try to convince people not to place MOCs, and we have been told "Get over it!" "Pay the $3, you cheap freeloader!" Etc, etc, etc. Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly; "It's not fair!"

I applaud the OP for this cache. He has found a way to make a statement against MOCs and try to balance (and hopefully even increase) the number of caches available to all cachers, all while conforming to Groundspeak's rules for the cache listing. I've often thought of doing this myself, although I would in fact modify it so that only PMs who have actually placed MOCs would be restricted from logging.

In my area, there is a cacher who places almost exclusively MOCs, quite a few, and none of them are ever opened up to the rest of the caching community. Since there is not a cache maggot problem in this area, I have to assume that his reason to deny me the opportunity to seek his cache is based on nothing more than the fact that I haven't paid for a Premium membership. As I've said before: If I am not good enough to seek his caches, then what makes him good enough (better?) to seek mine? A measely $3.00? I happen to judge people on alot more than that, I would hope people judge me on more than that as well.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Whew!!! Took me quite awhile to read through all five pages on this topic. Now, many of you know my stand on MOC's from prior threads about them, so I won't repeat myself (much, anyway ), but I've been laughing the entire time I've been reading this thread.

I'm hearing things from PMs like: This anti-MOC cache "divides" the geocaching community, which is wrong. Or this anti-MOC cache unfairly excludes some cachers based on nothing more than their ability/desire to pay Groundspeak a fee, which is wrong. Or it punishes cachers who support the site (in a very specific way), which is wrong...

The hypocrisy is astounding. Most, if not all, of those arguments can and have been used to try to convince people not to place MOCs, and we have been told "Get over it!" "Pay the $3, you cheap freeloader!" Etc, etc, etc. Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly; "It's not fair!"

I applaud the OP for this cache. He has found a way to make a statement against MOCs and try to balance (and hopefully even increase) the number of caches available to all cachers, all while conforming to Groundspeak's rules for the cache listing. I've often thought of doing this myself, although I would in fact modify it so that only PMs who have actually placed MOCs would be restricted from logging.

In my area, there is a cacher who places almost exclusively MOCs, quite a few, and none of them are ever opened up to the rest of the caching community. Since there is not a cache maggot problem in this area, I have to assume that his reason to deny me the opportunity to seek his cache is based on nothing more than the fact that I haven't paid for a Premium membership. As I've said before: If I am not good enough to seek his caches, then what makes him good enough (better?) to seek mine? A measely $3.00? I happen to judge people on alot more than that, I would hope people judge me on more than that as well.

Why don't you just pay the 3 bucks? The PQs alone are worth it!

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

In my area, there is a cacher who places almost exclusively MOCs, quite a few, and none of them are ever opened up to the rest of the caching community. Since there is not a cache maggot problem in this area, I have to assume that his reason to deny me the opportunity to seek his cache is based on nothing more than the fact that I haven't paid for a Premium membership.

What makes you think this cacher is making them MOC to prohibit YOU from finding them? Are you the only non premium member in your area?

Seems to me it would be simpler for him to just send you a message saying "please don't hunt my caches" if that was his goal, rather than make them MOC and hope you don't pony up. Either way it is still up to you if you want to hunt them.

I think you're taking this way too seriously and way too personal.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

In my area, there is a cacher who places almost exclusively MOCs, quite a few, and none of them are ever opened up to the rest of the caching community. Since there is not a cache maggot problem in this area, I have to assume that his reason to deny me the opportunity to seek his cache is based on nothing more than the fact that I haven't paid for a Premium membership.

What makes you think this cacher is making them MOC to prohibit YOU from finding them? Are you the only non premium member in your area?

Seems to me it would be simpler for him to just send you a message saying "please don't hunt my caches" if that was his goal, rather than make them MOC and hope you don't pony up. Either way it is still up to you if you want to hunt them.

I think you're taking this way too seriously and way too personal.

It does seem like there are bigger fish to fry.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

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.

That's an outstanding idea.I think paying members should be able to get first crack.

Posted April 22, 2007 · April 22, 2007

Can't believe myself - I wasted two or more hours of my time to read about a thread that will not influence me ever .

Someone, or two are going to pay. Cache test dummies and Vinny and Sue Team need to place each a cache in the Gauteng area of South Africa. (only joking - I should take more care to check the first and last postings before reading everything)

I did notice that the cache listing is temporarily unavailable - could you tell why?

LeonW :laughing:

Posted April 23, 2007 · April 23, 2007

Why don't you just pay the 3 bucks? The PQs alone are worth it!

I'm sure the PQs are indeed worth it, but I have no desire for them. If MOCs were discontinued tomorrow, I would immediately pay my $30, but as long as they are a part of the equation, I will not purchase a premium membership, because I believe that they divide geocachers based on a very flimsy pretense. There are many ways to contribute to this sport, most importantly (IMO) by placing quality caches and treating existing caches with respect (i.e. trading up, re-hiding well, performing repairs as needed, etc.). My lack of a Premium membership is simply my small way of protesting a feature that I believe does more harm to the sport than good. And yes, I accept that that means I cannot seek MOCs. But as I said, many of the same arguments that I and many others have used to try to convince PMs that MOCs are not good for the sport, are the same arguments PMs are now using (in this thread) to try to convince the OP that an anti-MOC is not good for the sport. Can you say "Irony"? I still can't get the grin off my face. :laughing:

What makes you think this cacher is making them MOC to prohibit YOU from finding them? Are you the only non premium member in your area?

I didn't mean to imply that I was the only regular member he was locking out of his caches. All of us are locked out. Yet I'm quite certain that he has no problem seeking out regular members' caches. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Don't get me wrong; Geocaching.com is a great site, by far the largest and most comprehensive site for this activity there is. And it is definitely a big part of why the sport has enjoyed the growth that it has. But realistically, the website is not the reason for the sport...THE SPORT IS THE REASON FOR THE WEBSITE. If it weren't for people placing and seeking caches, this site would have no reason to exist. Yet if the site went down tomorrow, the sport would go on.

Posted April 23, 2007 · April 23, 2007

Why don't you just pay the 3 bucks? The PQs alone are worth it!

I'm sure the PQs are indeed worth it, but I have no desire for them. If MOCs were discontinued tomorrow, I would immediately pay my $30, but as long as they are a part of the equation, I will not purchase a premium membership, because I believe that they divide geocachers based on a very flimsy pretense.

One of the silliest things I've seen in awhile, no offence. That's like saying if they stop putting toys in cereal you'll start eating it, because you feal toys divide breakfast eaters based on age.

You eat the cereal because you A: Like it or B: You think it's healthy

You pay for a Premium Membership because you A: Like the site and want to keep it running or B: you like the features and want to use them.

I've never heard anyone say they bought a Premium Membership so they could place or find PMOC's, I doubt any such person exists.

Posted April 23, 2007 · April 23, 2007

I didn't mean to imply that I was the only regular member he was locking out of his caches. All of us are locked out. Yet I'm quite certain that he has no problem seeking out regular members' caches. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

How is it hypocritical?

That is like saying it is hypocritical to use a Platinum Visa at Goodwill. "You Platinum guys oughta buy somewhere else this store is for the po'."

When one pays for a higher level of service, it comes with the expectation that the features of the lower level of service will be included still. it really WOULDN'T make sense any other way.

I guess you could compare it to the specious argument that since handicapped people have special parking spaces, it is somehow wrong for them to park in a non-handicapped space.

Can you cite even one instance ANYWHERE that paying extra for more privileges denies you access to the privileges enjoyed by those who pay less?

Silliest concept I have ever heard of.

is it perhaps just because a certain level of service is offered free, that people feel like it is somehow their RIGHT rather than a GIFT?

Maybe the non-paying members should be looking at their privileges, which are entirely adequate for them to enjoy the game for as long as the game exists, as the GIFT that it is.

The proper response when given a gift is to express gratitude to the GIVERS, not to complain that the gift is not adequate or not what was wanted.

Hey Vinny, thanks for resurrecting this... it is great study in human nature, especially the currently pervasive entitlement mentality. :laughing:

Posted April 23, 2007 · April 23, 2007

Why don't you just pay the 3 bucks? The PQs alone are worth it!

I'm sure the PQs are indeed worth it, but I have no desire for them. If MOCs were discontinued tomorrow, I would immediately pay my $30, but as long as they are a part of the equation, I will not purchase a premium membership, because I believe that they divide geocachers based on a very flimsy pretense.

One of the silliest things I've seen in awhile, no offence. That's like saying if they stop putting toys in cereal you'll start eating it, because you feal toys divide breakfast eaters based on age.

You eat the cereal because you A: Like it or B: You think it's healthy

You pay for a Premium Membership because you A: Like the site and want to keep it running or B: you like the features and want to use them.

I've never heard anyone say they bought a Premium Membership so they could place or find PMOC's, I doubt any such person exists.

I can truthfully say, I first bought a premium membership in early 2004, just to check out an MOC. Of course the benefits weren't as cool as they are now. Then there's the guy from my general area, who started a thread about MOC's early this year. The poor fellow was sitting in a zip code that had 40% of the first 200 caches MOC's (for no reason, I might add). By the way, he never signed up, and hasn't been heard from since. :laughing:

The First "no Members" Cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment