another cache find ethics question..

[brdad]

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation, since the forums have been slow...

Cacher A decides to hide an Earthcache on top of Mt. Everest... Obviously, he/she does not want to "hide" this cache alone so he takes his/her friend Cacher B along. Obviously, this is the perfect time for cacher B to claim this find, since odds are he/she may never make it back there again.

Is it right for Cacher B to claim this find, even though he/she did so before the cache was approved?

Should Cacher B have to come back after it is approved?

Should Cacher B never be allowed to log the cache since he/she was with Cacher A when it was hidden?

********************

If this were a physical cache, I think I would be okay with cacher B waiting out of sight of the actual cache hide, then when Cacher A was done he/she could give Cacher B the coords and let him find the cache, whilst not allowing him/herself to claim FTF on the cache. I don't think Cacher B should claim a find in this situation if he/she watched Cacher A hide the cache.

But in the case of an Earthcache, as long as you can physically get yourself to the coords, there is no real find involved, usually just a pic to prove you were there, and answer a question pertaining to the site.

So I think in this case I'd think it'd be ok for Cacher B to log the find, and sign online after it was approved, probably giving up any claim for FTF (If anyone cares about FTFs on an Earthcache?)

But the purist in me says that's not quite right. What do you think?

[Sudonim]

What about cacher A and B placing the cache together? If A and B were together at the spot, figuring out the features of the area that make it an Earthcache, B would have input to that discussion too.

[Haffy]

Everyone plays the game that they want to play it,if cacher B wants to claim the find then I see no problem with it. The purist way would be not to claim the find but not everyone is a purist in that sense and each of us plays the way we see fit.

[WhereRWe?]

Everyone plays the game that they want to play it,if cacher B wants to claim the find then I see no problem with it. The purist way would be not to claim the find but not everyone is a purist in that sense and each of us plays the way we see fit.

Oh, goody! Lets play The Purist Game!

Some people take their dogs caching with them, and the dog claims the cache. Now, did THE DOG sign the log? Should the dog be able to claim the cache as a "find"?

Some people would say that since GC.com registered the dog as a member, it should be OK. I wouldn't allow the dog to claim our caches, but if other people have no problem wit hit, that's their business.

Before we had an explosion of "urban microcaches" in Maine, the motto of this website used to be "The Way Caching Should Be". I haven't seen anyone advocating a new motto lately, so to many people, caching the way people in other states prefer could be called "The Way Caching Should Be" in Maine as well.

Sheesh! Longest post I've made in a LONG time! I need a beer!

[Hiram357]

Oh, goody! Lets play The Purist Game!

Some people take their dogs caching with them, and the dog claims the cache. Now, did THE DOG sign the log? Should the dog be able to claim the cache as a "find"?

Some people would say that since GC.com registered the dog as a member, it should be OK. I wouldn't allow the dog to claim our caches, but if other people have no problem wit hit, that's their business.

Before we had an explosion of "urban microcaches" in Maine, the motto of this website used to be "The Way Caching Should Be". I haven't seen anyone advocating a new motto lately, so to many people, caching the way people in other states prefer could be called "The Way Caching Should Be" in Maine as well.

Sheesh! Longest post I've made in a LONG time! I need a beer!

Ok Bruce, now tell us how you really feel....

I think that one of the nice thing about this game is the lack of rules (but the lack of can be a downfall at times... i.e. attracting a bomb squad...) but it's a there is no wrong or right to doing things kinda way, and even though people don't like micros (myself included) there are places where they are appropriate, even where they're not appropriate, the hider still has a right to place that cache. So I say if they want to log it (with or without the FTF, even though I think taking the FTF while there would be wrong...) go ahead, whos to say it's wrong, it's just a game... I'm not the cache police...

[Sudonim]

I suspect that the reason for the original post is that an outside source is ruling on the validity of the second person involved, and if person A places the cache and person B can't log it, it will cause logistical problems on another cache (was that obtuse enough??? )

[WhereRWe?]

Ok Bruce, now tell us how you really feel....

I think that one of the nice thing about this game is the lack of rules (but the lack of can be a downfall at times... i.e. attracting a bomb squad...) but it's a there is no wrong or right to doing things kinda way, and even though people don't like micros (myself included) there are places where they are appropriate, even where they're not appropriate, the hider still has a right to place that cache. So I say if they want to log it (with or without the FTF, even though I think taking the FTF while there would be wrong...) go ahead, whos to say it's wrong, it's just a game... I'm not the cache police...

Well, I'll tell you...

I never saw a cache that I wouldn't log! LOL!

[Hiram357]

Well, I'll tell you...

I never saw a cache that I wouldn't log! LOL!

well there! you just answered your own argument!!

See it, Sign it, Log it! and have fun caching! (all others will be drawn and quartered...)

[Medawisla]

Team AB!!
New profile, new hunting, new fun!!!
Geocaching times 2!!

[Gob-ler]

Are you ready for this?

Uh er oh, I think for the most part I agree with Brdad's closing comments in the first post!

there, I have done it now!