Owner Maintenance or Archived

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubord207

I think that there are cachers with multi-thousands of caches who become self-absorbed with themselves and twist the rules to fatten their already over inflated egos. This is a classic case and a message to the rest of us. The cacher was frustrated that after all the driving and his "expertise" that he couldn't find this cache. So log a damned DNF and get over it! I may have 3000 caches someday and if ever start displaying this type of arrogance then come slap me in the side of the head!!! I hope our Maine Publisher looks very carefully at all of this before publishing that cache as IMHO it violates the spirit of our game.

---

I agree!!!
BTW ....Which side of your head would you suggest!!!:o:o;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubord207

I think that there are cachers with multi-thousands of caches who become self-absorbed with themselves and twist the rules to fatten their already over inflated egos. This is a classic case and a message to the rest of us. The cacher was frustrated that after all the driving and his "expertise" that he couldn't find this cache. So log a damned DNF and get over it!

---

I agree. The way some people would hadle this - definitely people with "milti-thousands" of finds - would be to have the family dog (a premium member of GC.com with almost 9,000 finds for example), place a cache nearby and then log it yourself. LOL!

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

There really is little twisting of the rules here. If the cacher can show he can maintain it, there is nothing else he has done to twist any rules. We have cachers in this sate that have hidden caches in other states, and they hopefully maintain them. Mass is not that far for some individuals to maintain a cache.

I'm not trying to stand up for this guy, but there is no need to trash an individual without knowing the details. Do I think there's a good chance it won't get maintained? Probably.

If I had my way, cachers would only be able to hide caches within a set distance of home base, maybe 100 miles, and they would have to be 1 mile apart, not .1 mile. If I made the rules for the Delorme Challenge, I probably would have allowed new caches only if there were no other caches on the grid. But, I am not the maker of th rules of the challenge or geocaching.

Until gc.com approvers deny the cache placement, this cacher has not performed any actions against the rules, and if it is denied, he has made a mistake made by many others.

Maybe I'm reading things wrong here . . . and I still think it's odd that there was a DNF log on this cache, but no other found logs or DNFs (at least when I checked out this cacher's found/hidden cache page at gc.com the other day), but other than not finding the Orca cache and then hiding his own cache I don't see any real issues and agree with Brdad.

As Brdad said, and I agree, if folks want to hide a cache and can maintain that cache then I have no issues with them hiding that cache. While I think it is highly unlikely that a person from several states away will be able to effectively maintain a cache this deep in the Maine North Woods unless he happens to have a camp up here or regularly hunts/fishes/camps in the area and while I personally tend to restrict my cache hides to local areas (local to where I live and local to where I work) other folks have and can hide and maintain caches a fair distance from where they live and work (i.e. Hiram and Gob-ler spring to mind as two guys that have hidden some caches and have maintained their caches even though some are far from their home base.)

I also agree with Dave in saying that we really don't know what is going on with this cacher and it seems to me that we as a collective group and me personally (i.e. Wolf) have jumped to false conclusions in the past (very easy to do on a BBS such as this) . . . so I think I will try to keep an open mind about this cache and cacher until details are known . . . after all . . . it is possible that the cache that the Orcas hid may have been muggled and the guy hid another cache to meet the DeLorme challenge rules -- something that I really can't fault him for doing.

And finally as for "twisting" the rules for the DeLorme challenge . . . well I might plea mea culpa . . . since Hiram, Medawisla and I didn't realize there was another cache available in one grid and hid a cache (apparently allowed, but again some might consider this stretching the rules a bit) and then on one of Sudonim's caches Medawisla and I were unable to find it (as were a few other cachers before us). Since Hiram had found it before and knew exactly where it was before we searched some more, came up empty and Hiram re-hid the cache in the same spot and later contacted Andy to see if this was OK (again some might have thought we stretched the rules since Medawisla and I "found" the cache after Hiram re-hid the cache -- incidentally we would not have logged this cache as a find or placed this cache if a) Hiram had not found this before and knew exactly where it was located before or b) we did not know Andy well enough to assume what he would want and c) in logs and e-mails we asked Andy to delete our logs if he felt this was not a legitimate find and to let us know if he would want us to go back and remove the cache container.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhereRWe?

I agree. The way some people would hadle this - definitely people with "milti-thousands" of finds - would be to have the family dog (a premium member of GC.com with almost 9,000 finds for example), place a cache nearby and then log it yourself. LOL!

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

---

I've got five cats . . . maybe I should create memberships for each of them and have them hide caches for me to find . . . but it might be a bit weird since three of the cats are named after dead Presidents of the United States (i.e. John Tyler, Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt.) ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainiac1957

Jake doesn't read fast so you need to type slower. L i k e t h i s!! S e e. :D:rolleyes::p


Sorry Jake I c a n' t h e l p i t! :rolleyes:

---

I like riding the shortbus and licking the windows! ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brdad

. . .
I don't approve of vacation caches, but I'd approve less of people who DNF a cache and replace the 'missing' cache so they can log it as a find.

---

Does this mean you won't respect me when you wake up in the morning Dave? ;):D

Not sure if this was directed at me personally or just a general opinion . . . in either case I don't take it personally. However, we did just this . . . but there were some mitigating circumstances (i.e. another cacher present had found the cache before and knew where it was -- the main reason we did what we did -- we would not have done this if none of us had not found this cache previously, e-mails were sent to the cache owner afterwards to make sure it was OK to replace the missing cache and the cachers who logged this as a find also understood that the cache owner could disqualify their find if he so choose.)

Oh . . . I had another thought pertaining to this topic. At the end of the day the thing we all need to remember is (wait for it . . . it's that oldie, but goodie) . . .

It's just a game. ;):D

Quote:

---

There was at least one cache placed to qualify as a grid even though caches existed there that I know of. So, I think it is allowed. And, if the cache gets approved, it should qualify. Whether or not is should is another debate.

---

I read the Delorme challange again and see that I probably misinterperted it before. I agree with you now. As long as the cache gets approved it's OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firefighterjake

And finally as for "twisting" the rules for the DeLorme challenge . . . well I might plea mea culpa . . . since Hiram, Medawisla and I didn't realize there was another cache available in one grid and hid a cache

---

Jake, there are no other caches on that grid, i checked again last night

[quote=firefighterjake;44684]Maybe I'm reading things wrong here . . . and I still think it's odd that there was a DNF log on this cache, but no other found logs or DNFs (at least when I checked out this cacher's found/hidden cache page at gc.com the other day), but other than not finding the Orca cache and then hiding his own cache I don't see any real issues and agree with Brdad.


FFJ,

Upsalquich was playing with Hiram and Bailey came along and pulled Medawisla's hair, so Hiram kicked Bailey, and they all got sent to the Principals Office!!!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiram357

Jake, there are no other caches on that grid, i checked again last night

---

I always trust my Hiram Hiram and if the Hiram Hiram says there were no other caches than there were no other caches. ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firefighterjake

I always trust my Hiram Hiram and if the Hiram Hiram says there were no other caches than there were no other caches. ;):D

---

these are not the droids you are looking for... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiram357

these are not the droids you are looking for... :cool:

---

"These aren't the droids we're looking for . . . move along, move along." ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firefighterjake

Does this mean you won't respect me when you wake up in the morning Dave? ;):D

Not sure if this was directed at me personally or just a general opinion . . . in either case I don't take it personally. However, we did just this . . . but there were some mitigating circumstances (i.e. another cacher present had found the cache before and knew where it was -- the main reason we did what we did -- we would not have done this if none of us had not found this cache previously, e-mails were sent to the cache owner afterwards to make sure it was OK to replace the missing cache and the cachers who logged this as a find also understood that the cache owner could disqualify their find if he so choose.)

---

No, it was not directed at you. In fact, when I made the post I had no idea you were a chea... err, liked to bend the rules. Ok, just joking ;) Well, except for the part where I didn't know what you had done.

Anyway, I consider your situation slightly different because the cache's non-existence was verified by a previous finder, and replaced by him, not you. In that situation, I probably would have turned my back while it was re-hid and then gone to find it afterward.

I consider this different than if you had gone there alone, not found the cache, and replaced the cache where you assumed it was supposed to be and then logged it as a find. This has been done before.

That's my opinion anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brdad

No, it was not directed at you. In fact, when I made the post I had no idea you were a chea... err, liked to bend the rules. Ok, just joking ;) Well, except for the part where I didn't know what you had done.

Anyway, I consider your situation slightly different because the cache's non-existence was verified by a previous finder, and replaced by him, not you. In that situation, I probably would have turned my back while it was re-hid and then gone to find it afterward.

I consider this different than if you had gone there alone, not found the cache, and replaced the cache where you assumed it was supposed to be and then logged it as a find. This has been done before.

That's my opinion anyway...

---

So you still respect me . . . well tolerate me here at least. ;):D

I wasn't sure if the comment was directed to me as I mentioned . . . but honestly I wasn't taking anything personally anyways even if it had been . . . and like you said, if the other cacher had not found this cache previously and knew exactly where it was it would have remained as a DNF . . . I have never and will never replace a cache where I think it should be and log it as a find . . . of course if I did I would probably have close to 2,000 finds now instead of a lot of sad faces. ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiram357

nope, they DNFd ours and rehid another to get the delorme map...

and I highly doubt that ours is missing since upsalquitch found it last week, and it's not in a very "high muggle" area...

---

So I've got this cache on my watchlist and I noticed that the folks who DNFed this find and then stated they were going to hide another cache in the area have now found this cache on the very same date that they DNFed it . . . and the DNF entry is now gone.

Anyone have any idea of what is going on? Did they find it or not? Was the other cache approved? I am so very, very confused . . . well more confused than normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firefighterjake

So I've got this cache on my watchlist and I noticed that the folks who DNFed this find and then stated they were going to hide another cache in the area have now found this cache on the very same date that they DNFed it . . . and the DNF entry is now gone.

Anyone have any idea of what is going on? Did they find it or not? Was the other cache approved? I am so very, very confused . . . well more confused than normal.

---

One way to know for sure - what's on the log?

let not your heart be troubled, I shall send an email of inquiry, if all else fails.. road trip! I need to check on my Omaha cache anyways... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiram357

let not your heart be troubled, I shall send an email of inquiry, if all else fails.. road trip! I need to check on my Omaha cache anyways... :D

---

Road trip - when?!:eek: Car pool - I mean ride share???;) When? :) I would love to go if it's when I'm available. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollora

Road trip - when?!:eek: Car pool - I mean ride share???;) When? :) I would love to go if it's when I'm available. :D

---

well... its 2:15 now... and i've got nothin better to do... :rolleyes: