Are There Limits To A Cache Owner’s Authority?

1.7k · April 12, 2005

This is a purely hypothetical illustration to try to determine if there are limits to a cache owner’s authority.

Scenario:

An avid cacher spends two days solving a difficult puzzle cache and drives 100 miles to be the First to Find this unique cache. He logs the cache properly both at the cache and on the web. The next day he checks to see if there’s a second to find and discovers his log has been deleted. He emails the owner, who replies that he (the owner) doesn’t like people with the cacher’s name and has deleted his log.

I’ve seen it stated here that the owner “owns” the cache and because it belongs to him/her he can accept or delete any log he chooses to. Does the FTF cacher have any recourse or must he accept the owners action?

If it turns out there are limits to the owners authority I will probably present less extreme scenarios in an attempt to discover these limits.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Thot

April 12, 2005

That's a good question, but it would appear to me that the owner remains ultimately responsible for who can receive log credit. There is multiple reasons for this. 1, virtual caches often require some sort of "validation" to be verified/logged, thus owners take the responsibility of doing this vs. strapping the gc.com staff with more items to reveiw. 2, flood logging, where users simply post that they've found a cache when in reality they never signed the log, is quickly resolved by giving each cache owner the authority to remove such logs.

True it opens up the door to abuse Im sure, but in 99.9% of cases I beleive it's a function that should stay. There's usually 2 sides to every story, so you might think about sending a note to your local reviewer for feedback if this hypothetical ever became a reality.

Edited April 12, 2005 by acPilot

18.9k · April 12, 2005

Hard to close ALL loopholes for those that will abuse systems.........We just sort of "shun" them as a commuinity for such behavior.

1.7k · April 12, 2005

There's usually 2 sides to every story, so you might think about sending a note to your local reviewer for feedback if this hypothetical ever became a reality.

Of course in this case there aren't two sides because I am presenting the entire story. But, does this mean the local cache approver has authority over logging disputes?

Edited April 12, 2005 by Thot

6.4k · April 12, 2005

Peer pressure is more powerful then any rule the site could possibly come up with.

6.4k · April 12, 2005

does this mean the local cache approver has authority over logging disputes?

From what I've seen posted in other threads, the answer is no. The cache owner is pretty much god when it comes to the logs, and this site does not get involved in policing them unless they are profane or obscene. The usual advice when this happens (and it does occasionally happen) is to either get in a p*ssing match with the cache owner and just keep relogging it until someone gets tired, or just let it go knowing you signed the logbook and all the other cachers will figure out what an *ss the guy is.

20.7k · April 12, 2005

In this hypothetical scenario, the finder may want to contact the cache owner to see if there are any personal issues that can be worked out and if there is any way that the cache owner will allow the log to stand.

The owner definitely has the authority to deny the logs. Whether its right or not to do so is a ethical issue and not within the scope of your question.

If the owner doesn't allow the finder to log it on-line, the finder can do a number of things...

He could log a find on one of his own caches, explaining that it is for cache GCWXYZ.
He could relog it until the cows come home. It is likely that this will only escalate the situation. Trust me.
He could take no action, but prove himself locally to be a stand-up guy and perhaps the cache owner will come around one day.

My personal advice is to use a combination of the first and third suggestion. Log it on your page to preserve your history and make your numbers be correct. Then just cache on. I wouldn't avoid his caches and I wouldn't bad mouth the other cacher. Just live your life. When you find his caches, leave good logs. They might get deleted, but perhaps you'll be recognized as a good guy.

Edited April 12, 2005 by sbell111

4.8k · April 12, 2005

This site allows cache owners to delete logs and avoids getting involved in logging issues. But that doesn't mean there is no recourse for a person whose log was deleted. If someone is deleting logs for inappropriate reasons the community will likely start speaking up either by emailing the cache owner or boycotting their caches etc. I personally tend to avoid some caches with strange logging requirements because I don't want the headache of making sure I get it right, although I do them where the requirement has a purpose that fits with the cache. A person whose log was improperly deleted could always log the find on one of their own caches with an explanation as well.

Mostly though, an owner can't really delete the fact of the find. They can delete the record of it, but not the finder's memory of it.

April 12, 2005

Hard to close ALL loopholes for those that will abuse systems.........We just sort of "shun" them as a commuinity for such behavior.

I agree with Starbrand. This is a community; you could always plead your case here in the forums. I would think if you have a valid gripe the other members would apply pressure on the owner and give them a forum to plead their case.

April 12, 2005

[*]He could log a find on one of his own caches, explaining that it is for cache GCWXYZ.

Excellent idea.

It'd just be very poor form to deny a log to someone who actually logged in the cache; I don't think there are any limits to them deleting logs.

Edited April 12, 2005 by JimmyEv

20.7k · April 12, 2005

...This is a community; you could always plead your case here in the forums. I would think if you have a valid gripe the other members would apply pressure on the owner and give them a forum to plead their case.

You could do that. Of course, it could just make the issue messier and the misunderstanding harder to clear up.

6.7k · April 12, 2005

Regardless of scenario and details, the answer to your question as posed in the topic title "Are there limits to a cache owner's authority?" is No, there are no limits, the cache owner owns the cache and, within the letter and intent of gc.com's listing guidelines, can do whatever they please with it.

Placing a cache for players enjoyment gives players no more ownership rights to the cache than if I invited you into my home, even if I rent you a room in my house, or the whole house for that matter - You can come in, but under my rules and limits; in any circumstance I own the place and you do not!

Saying you have some owner interest in my cache because I listed it publicly and invited people to visit it would be like saying you own the playground at McDonalds because they made it available and invite you to play there!

Edited April 12, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

20.7k · April 12, 2005

Well said, AR. I never really worked it through like that, although I do think that it is impolite to delete finds that were properly logged.

April 13, 2005

I can sort of relate to the hypothetical. I was travelling to another state and searched for a cache that the owner had turned from a traditional into a virtual. However it had not been resubmitted or changed to show it was now a virtual, other than in the description. I didn't have my pda with me and was going to log a DNF on the cache and saw it was now a virtual with no info required to claim the smiley. In the log I mentioned I had no idea it had changed to a virtual and I logged it as a find, since I had seen the mountain views the owner wanted people to see and enjoy. The following day I received an e-mail my log had been deleted by the cache owner. Upon checking the page, I saw it had been archived by the reviewer for that area who explained that it wasn't possible for a cache owner to change a listing from a traditional to a virtual without resubmitting it.

Since this was an area I was visiting, I asked one of my friends there what the owner's deal was. I won't repeat what was conveyed to me since this is a "family sport / hobby." But I guess the cache owner felt I contacted the reviewer for that area and asked that the cache be archived, which I didn't do.

I wanted to blast the cache owner but I showed amazing restraint and just let it slide until I vented about it on here. Since the cache is now archived, there's no re-logging if the "issue" is resolved. Although my view of the hider remains the same. I won't waste my time searching for another of their caches.

20.7k · April 13, 2005

...I wanted to blast the cache owner but I showed amazing restraint and just let it slide until I vented about it on here. Since the cache is now archived, there's no re-logging if the "issue" is resolved. Although my view of the hider remains the same. I won't waste my time searching for another of their caches.

I am impressed with your restraint, however, wouldn't you be better served by reaching out to the owner and explaining that you had nothing to do with its archival? BTW, you can still log it, even though it is archived.

1.7k · April 13, 2005

Just a note to say I've read and appreciate all the replies. Thanks.

3.9k · April 13, 2005

Reitterating what others have said, the cache owner has full authority over the cache and the logs. By the same token, GC has full authority over what they list. If a cache owner does behave that poorly and unfairly, then GC "could" archive the listing. I would now venture to assume it would take a very significant amount of "unfairness" before that would happen.

38.2k · April 13, 2005

I’ve seen it stated here that the owner “owns” the cache and because it belongs to him/her he can accept or delete any log he chooses to. Does the FTF cacher have any recourse or must he accept the owners action?

I can't imagine what recourse someone would have outside posting here in hopes that peer pressure will get the owner to change his mind. The scenario is not all that far fetched either. I'm aware of instances of owners deleting logs simply because they do not like the person who found the cache.

3.9k · April 13, 2005

Food for thot. Oops, "thought". People who take that sort of drastic action with thier logs and such tend not to stay in the realm of geocaching for very long.

24.7k · April 13, 2005

The cache owner is lord and king when it comes to their logs. However it won't take long for everyone to ignore that cacher, ignore their caches and it would not suprise me if they joined the ranks of banned members.

Then they might move on to the ranks of cache maggot.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Renegade Knight

April 13, 2005

He emails the owner, who replies that he (the owner) doesn’t like people with the cacher’s name and has deleted his log.

Do you know why he finds "the cachers name" offensive? Is it your name he has taken offense to, or some other cachers name. IMO, knowing this fact may help explain it better.

3.9k · April 13, 2005

He emails the owner, who replies that he (the owner) doesn’t like people with the cacher’s name and has deleted his log.

Do you know why he finds "the cachers name" offensive? Is it your name he has taken offense to, or some other cachers name. IMO, knowing this fact may help explain it better.

This is a hypothetical situation. It could be the person's name, it could be the fact that the owner lives in Texas, or even a race/gender/height/age thing.

1.7k · April 13, 2005

This is a hypothetical situation. It could be the person's name, it could be the fact that the owner lives in Texas, or even a race/gender/height/age thing.

Exactly.

I wanted to say color of the person's eyes but since the owner can't see the cacher that wouldn't work

Edited April 13, 2005 by Thot

3.9k · April 13, 2005

This is a hypothetical situation. It could be the person's name, it could be the fact that the owner lives in Texas, or even a race/gender/height/age thing.

Exactly.

I wanted to say color of the person's eyes but since the owner can't see the cacher that wouldn't work

I would go with shoe size. The hider feels that everyone should put thier shoe size on thier profile page. BTW: GC is being irresponsible because they don't have a mandatory field where your shoe size should go.

Ok, we can get back on topic now.

April 13, 2005

Another sad fact is that if a geocacher was deleting logs because he didn't like certain cachers or he "just felt like it". I don't think it would take too long for the cache to disapeer or get stolen. Acting like a jerk will make other jerks want to get revenge on you.

April 13, 2005

You know it, Radman.

7.2k · April 13, 2005

I’ve seen it stated here that the owner “owns” the cache and because it belongs to him/her he can accept or delete any log he chooses to. Does the FTF cacher have any recourse or must he accept the owners action?

The cache owner has full authority of the online logs. He also has the responsibiblity to ensure all of the logs are legitimate.

While it is said the cache owner owns the cache, the finder owns the find. It is those two parties responsibility to ensure the logs are reasonably accurate. The finder is to not post bogus logs and the owner is to delete any bogus logs. Beyond this and policing spoilers anything else is misconduct.

As others have said, this type of person will likely not last long. Another avenue to properly log the cache is to put it on your watch list and when he gets banned or becomes inactive, log the cache. Most likely it will not get deleted, then.

Like RK said, getting in a whizzing contest will likely produce a maggot.

3.9k · April 13, 2005

Maybe, after the find is deleted, the logger could post a DNF, possibly saying "actually I found it". If the owner deletes both your finds and your DNFs, he must have a real problem with you.

Provided this isn't done in "pee-pee contest" style, it might - in a few cases - help resolve the situation. Or, of course, not - there's no entrance examination or psychotic tendency test for cache owners...

>>Like RK said, getting in a whizzing contest will likely produce a maggot.

Ouch

Edited April 13, 2005 by sTeamTraen

2.2k · April 13, 2005

Regardless of scenario and details, the answer to your question as posed in the topic title "Are there limits to a cache owner's authority?" is No, there are no limits, the cache owner owns the cache and, within the letter and intent of gc.com's listing guidelines, can do whatever they please with it.

Placing a cache for players enjoyment gives players no more ownership rights to the cache than if I invited you into my home, even if I rent you a room in my house, or the whole house for that matter - You can come in, but under my rules and limits; in any circumstance I own the place and you do not!

Saying you have some owner interest in my cache because I listed it publicly and invited people to visit it would be like saying you own the playground at McDonalds because they made it available and invite you to play there!

Well, it's not quite that simple. If I rent a room in your house, I *do* have some legal rights. You cannot just impose any rules you want to. And you certainly cannot change the rules without my consent.

By inviting me into their playground, McDonald's does, in fact, concede some rights to me as to what I can reasonably expect while I am there. They cannot, for instance, ban anyone named Donald from playing there, just because they own it.

Seems like the same would apply to caches, but I don't know how it would be enforced.

April 14, 2005

Food for thot. Oops, "thought".

:huh:

April 14, 2005

Like RK said, getting in a whizzing contest will likely produce a maggot.

Tell me about these "maggots". What does this term mean?

On topic - Seems the law of natural selection applies here. A "jerk" could not long sustain his caches by behaving poorly. As some have suggested, his or her cache could disappear. Alternately, no one would want to seek it.

It is interesting to know that I have unlimited authority over my caches. I will try not to let the power go to my head. :huh:

1.1k · April 14, 2005

Peer pressure is more powerful then any rule the site could possibly come up with.

The problem with this idea is that in the cacheing community outside of this forum there is NO peer pressure. People hae pretty much anominity of who they are and what they do. So how would peer pressure work. Even if you ranted here on the forum there is a 90 percent chance that the person will NOT be on the forum(s). So what peer pressure is there????

7.2k · April 14, 2005

Tell me about these "maggots". What does this term mean?

Someone who steals or defaces a cache without authority.

They used to be called "pirates" because they would steal or loot the cache. But many feel "pirate" undeservedly elevates these folks to a rank beyond their station.

April 14, 2005

Tell me about these "maggots". What does this term mean?

Someone who steals or defaces a cache without authority.

They used to be called "pirates" because they would steal or loot the cache. But many feel "pirate" undeservedly elevates these folks to a rank beyond their station.

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. In the last two weeks, I have been the victim of a cache maggot. My cache was cleaned out but they left the log book and ammo can. I just assumed some kids found it.

9.4k · April 14, 2005

You could also repost your "found" log everyday and see if he gets tired of deleting them before you get tired of reposting them.

7.2k · April 14, 2005

Tell me about these "maggots". What does this term mean?

Someone who steals or defaces a cache without authority.

They used to be called "pirates" because they would steal or loot the cache. But many feel "pirate" undeservedly elevates these folks to a rank beyond their station.

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. In the last two weeks, I have been the victim of a cache maggot. My cache was cleaned out but they left the log book and ammo can. I just assumed some kids found it.

Come to think of it. It might really mean someone who does it on purpose versus someone who accidentally found and raided it not knowing what it was about. It seems I've really seen used for purposely raiding while the accidental finders vandalizing a cache would be "muggled."

Huh, the subtleties of terms just struck me.

Edited April 14, 2005 by CoyoteRed

6.7k · April 14, 2005

Well, it's not quite that simple. If I rent a room in your house, I *do* have some legal rights. You cannot just impose any rules you want to. And you certainly cannot change the rules without my consent.

Actually it's exactly that simple! You may, in some states, have some tenancy rights, but absolutely no ownership right or interest, which is the question here. I have owned rental properties in Alabama, Georgia and California and can (and do) make the rules, which I can change at my whim, my only requirement being proper tennant notification. And, in Alabama you have darn few tenancy rights! Read your rental agreement. There is nothing in it in your favor! I do not need your consent to make your bedroom into a chicken coop - just 30 days notice. Hope you like eggs!

By inviting me into their playground, McDonald's does, in fact, concede some rights to me as to what I can reasonably expect while I am there. They cannot, for instance, ban anyone named Donald from playing there, just because they own it. Seems like the same would apply to caches, but I don't know how it would be enforced.

Nope, McDonalds cedes you absolutely no ownership right or benefit, no expectation beyond a certain very limited degree of personal safety. You are there under their host and pleasure and have few if any "rights" and zero ownership interest. They can set, change and enforce any rule at their whim without notice. They can ban anyone named Donald, just like they can (and do) ban people over a certain age, height and weight. You may have recourse to a discrimination suit if your name is Donald AND you have somehow been harmed by the anti-Donald rule, but you still don't own anything! Win the lawsuit and buy the place, then you can set the rules!

All of this, of course, alludes to the OP - He who has the gold (or the cache) makes the rules!

1.3k · April 14, 2005

Also remember, even though the log is 'deleted', it isn't really gone. I had a couple logs that I suspected would be deleted very soon after they were posted, so before I logged them, I placed the caches on my watchlist.

Then, when I did submit my logs, I received the typical watchlist notice with a link to the log. That link continues to display the logs even if they were deleted. I can easily post this link in my profile, personal webpage, or even here in the forums if I wish too.

Of course, this requires a bit of pre-planning. Without the link in the watchlist, you're sunk, since archived logs do not remain on your account page.

*stupid typos!

Edited April 14, 2005 by gnbrotz

20.7k · April 14, 2005

Why would you need to put the cache on your watchlist? Isn't the link to the log provided in the email notification?

Are There Limits To A Cache Owner’s Authority?

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

Join the conversation