I almost don't want to admit this..

[+sbell111]

Is this thread dead, yet? Has everyone tired of having the same argument, yet again?

[+sbell111]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

 

tomato/tomahto

[CoyoteRed]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

[+sbell111]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Interesting point of view, it differs from mine, however.

 

"These must go!" "They're fine."

 

"This is a problem that must be corrected before it destroys the game." "No, it isn't."

Edited July 7, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Interesting point of view, it differs from mine, however.

 

"These must go!" "They're fine."

 

"This is a problem that must be corrected before it destroys the game." "No, it isn't."

"I have a complaint." "No, you don't."

[+sbell111]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Interesting point of view, it differs from mine, however.

 

"These must go!" "They're fine."

 

"This is a problem that must be corrected before it destroys the game." "No, it isn't."

"I have a complaint." "No, you don't."

"These caches are ruining the game (for me)" "Have you tried to avoid them?" "Nope. We must make them go away."

[+sbell111]

"What about the children???"

[CoyoteRed]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Interesting point of view, it differs from mine, however.

 

"These must go!" "They're fine."

 

"This is a problem that must be corrected before it destroys the game." "No, it isn't."

"I have a complaint." "No, you don't."

"These caches are ruining the game (for me)" "Have you tried to avoid them?" "Nope. We must make them go away."

"Yep. And it's starting to take a full-time effort simply to identify the junk and weed them out."

 

Alternatively...

 

"When I go into a virgin area it's kind of hard to know who places the junk and where the junky areas are. I spend my whole weekend just trying to figure this out and don't get any quality caching done. Sure I can identify LPCs with a map, but that's not my only complaint. Big boxes don't hold a lock on lame caches, you know."

 

...and we can go on forever.

 

One side has a complaint and you simply can't make it not so by claiming we're not doing it right. That hole in the sand in which you put your collective heads doesn't make the other side's complaint less valid.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Is this thread dead, yet? Has everyone tired of having the same argument, yet again?

 

I would seem that if the discussion keeps coming up, there are people that like geocaching enough to want to talk it. Really the only thing that I see being the same is the people that suggest that people are evil for wanting to see an upswing in the number of quality caches and who advocate to encourage people to place them. What is different (and why I participate) is the constant flow and variety of people with ideas on how to make it better.

 

---edited for clarity and heading for more coffee

Edited July 7, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+TrailGators]

Is this thread dead, yet? Has everyone tired of having the same argument, yet again?

 

I would seem that if the discussion keeps coming up, there are people that like geocaching enough to want to talk it. Really the only thing that I see being the same is the people that claim that everything is hunky dory. What is different (and why I participate) is the constant flow and variety of people with ideas on how to make it better.

 

I agree. Creativity comes from need. I'm not sure why people that don't feel there is any need are so threatened that they constantly need to rain on our parade....

[+Renegade Knight]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

[+Renegade Knight]

...y the only thing that I see being the same is the people that claim that everything is hunky dory. What is different (and why I participate) is the constant flow and variety of people with ideas on how to make it better.

 

It's hard to see which side you are on from this post. It clearly supports how things are since what brings us lame caches also brings us people with ideas on how to make it better and who do so. In other words the current system is hunky dory. However also point out how stagnant those pople are for thinking that.

[+Team GeoBlast]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

 

This almost suggests that it is possible for geocaching to stay static. Anyway, can you throw the morning challenged a bone here? Are you saying that raising the bar is not desirable because fewer caches would stand out?

[+Team GeoBlast]

...y the only thing that I see being the same is the people that claim that everything is hunky dory. What is different (and why I participate) is the constant flow and variety of people with ideas on how to make it better.

 

It's hard to see which side you are on from this post. It clearly supports how things are since what brings us lame caches also brings us people with ideas on how to make it better and who do so. In other words the current system is hunky dory. However also point out how stagnant those pople are for thinking that.

 

Sorry dude, it's 4:30am and I should be gearing up for my hike. I'll do the right thing and just step away from the keyboard.

[+TrailGators]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So there would be no good without evil? What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader? Amyhow, my issue is not with Darth Vader, but with the zillions of tiny Darth Vaders. Why can't there be thousands of Luke Skywalkers instead? Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

...y the only thing that I see being the same is the people that claim that everything is hunky dory. What is different (and why I participate) is the constant flow and variety of people with ideas on how to make it better.

 

It's hard to see which side you are on from this post. It clearly supports how things are since what brings us lame caches also brings us people with ideas on how to make it better and who do so. In other words the current system is hunky dory. However also point out how stagnant those pople are for thinking that.

 

Sorry dude, it's 4:30am and I should be gearing up for my hike. I'll do the right thing and just step away from the keyboard.

I'm getting ready for mine as sonn as my daughter wakes up.

[+Renegade Knight]

...This almost suggests that it is possible for geocaching to stay static. Anyway, can you throw the morning challenged a bone here? Are you saying that raising the bar is not desirable because fewer caches would stand out?

 

I'm saying raising the bar creates a more static geocaching world. Maximixing freedom creates a mix. Good, Bad, Ugly, but the activity isn't static.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So there would be no good without evil? What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader? Amyhow, my issue is not with Darth Vader, but with the zillions of tiny Darth Vaders. Why can't there be thousands of Luke Skywalkers instead?

 

It's so much easier in life to do anything but the right thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Sorry dude, it's 4:30am and I should be gearing up for my hike. I'll do the right thing and just step away from the keyboard.

 

I'm avoiding helping my nephew move, and pulling tile out of the shower, and refinishing the kitchen. But better bit the bullet and get something done... Stepping away from the keyboard...

[+TrailGators]

...Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So there would be no good without evil? What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader? Amyhow, my issue is not with Darth Vader, but with the zillions of tiny Darth Vaders. Why can't there be thousands of Luke Skywalkers instead?

It's so much easier in life to do anything but the right thing.

You are right and "easy" is the key word. "Difficult" is far more satisfying, but it takes dedication and effort.

[+sbell111]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So there would be no good without evil? What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader? Amyhow, my issue is not with Darth Vader, but with the zillions of tiny Darth Vaders. Why can't there be thousands of Luke Skywalkers instead?

Wait a minute. You're saying that you believe that your arguments have presented the 'good' side?

 

What about all those people who believe that they are doing it right and are having a lot of fun playing the game, but don't quite meet your expectations? They're on the 'dark' side?

 

Is that what you really believe?

Edited July 7, 2007 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

I wish some folks would put a little more thought into their hides, especially with safety in mind. If you wouldn't want your own family or friends in a certain area looking for a cache, maybe it's not the best spot.

 

In particular: along busy highways and roads, buried in poison plants and/or berry bushes, co-mingled in popular trash dumping areas, and near obvious homeless encampments.

Careful Big.Foot. You don't want to be seen as repressing those poor unfortunates who are unable to conceive of locations better than the ones you mentioned.

[Clan Riffster]

What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader?

<heavy breathing>

[A film canister walks up to an ammo can aboard a space ship]

<heavy breathing>

"Ammo can, I am your father"

<heavy breathing>

"Join me, and we can rule the caching universe"

<heavy breathing>

[The ammo can hurls itself off a balcony]

"Nooooooooo......

[Mushtang]

What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader?

<heavy breathing>

[A film canister walks up to an ammo can aboard a space ship]

<heavy breathing>

"Ammo can, I am your father"

<heavy breathing>

"Join me, and we can rule the caching universe"

<heavy breathing>

[The ammo can hurls itself off a balcony]

"Nooooooooo......

Balcony? Are you thinking about Romeo and Juliette?

[+TrailGators]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So there would be no good without evil? What would Luke Skywalker do if there were no Darth Vader? Amyhow, my issue is not with Darth Vader, but with the zillions of tiny Darth Vaders. Why can't there be thousands of Luke Skywalkers instead?

Wait a minute. You're saying that you believe that your arguments have presented the 'good' side?

 

What about all those people who believe that they are doing it right and are having a lot of fun playing the game, but don't quite meet your expectations? They're on the 'dark' side?

 

Is that what you really believe?

Alas, we now hear from Emperor Palpatine...

"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen ..."

[+sbell111]

<sigh>

 

I guess that IS what you believe.

[+TrailGators]

<sigh>

 

I guess that IS what you believe.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

[+Renegade Knight]

<sigh>

 

I guess that IS what you believe.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

"There is no spoon." - Bald Headed Monk Kid.

"Whoah" - Neo

"SPOOOOOONNNNN!!!" - The Tick.

 

Yup, it's all what you believe.

[+TrailGators]

<sigh>

 

I guess that IS what you believe.

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

"There is no spoon." - Bald Headed Monk Kid.

"Whoah" - Neo

"SPOOOOOONNNNN!!!" - The Tick.

 

Yup, it's all what you believe.

Hey! You switched movies on me. I know Star Wars way better than The Matrix, but the point is the same! Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Is there room in your reality for geocachers who enjoy caches that you dislike (and the caches in question)?

Edited July 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Is there room in your reality for geocachers who enjoy caches that you dislike (and the caches in question)?

Do you mean these guys?

There are many of them and they have taken over all Wal-Marts....

Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+geomann1]

...This almost suggests that it is possible for geocaching to stay static. Anyway, can you throw the morning challenged a bone here? Are you saying that raising the bar is not desirable because fewer caches would stand out?

 

I'm saying raising the bar creates a more static geocaching world. Maximixing freedom creates a mix. Good, Bad, Ugly, but the activity isn't static.

 

I admit, I don't have a solution to this one. In general it is a good idea to try to raise the bar for most activities, but it is hard to see a practical solution in which the cure is not worse than the problem.

 

I don't have a problem with micros as they offer the opportunity for a creative hide in an urban/suburban setting, and that a macro in the bushes is not necessarily better than a keyholder at a guardrail.

 

I would not that not all caches need to be camo masterpieces. For example, I just put out a cache (GC13WJM) that is just a yellow rubber duck in the weeds next to a seldom used road. It was meant to be kid friendly. Although by some standards it is lame, people so far are having fun with it, which is what the game is all about.

 

I would also note that there is a lot a preaching to the choir here. I suspect nearly all of the posters here give quite a bit of thought to their caches.

[+sbell111]

Is there room in your reality for geocachers who enjoy caches that you dislike (and the caches in question)?

Do you mean these guys?

<snip>

There are many of them and they have taken over all Wal-Marts....

Are you planning on giving a serious answer to any question?

[CoyoteRed]

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that group one thinks everything is fine and group two wishes to impose their wills on group one.

Gross over simplification. "Imposing wills" as you say applies to both sides. "I want it the same." "I want it better."

Not really. Doing nothing imposes nothing on the other group. It's how things are. There is no active control group ensure things remain the same.

Then you must have a few people on your ignore list, because there definitely are people who don't want others advocating placing better caches.

Raising the quality does change how everyone would cache. My opinion is that it would make for less caches that break the mold and become the best of the best.

So, you can't be creative and have high standards? I don't get that.

 

As for having fewer caches, I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean it's not as if every book gets published, only the better ones. Yet, I have no lack to something to read.

[+TrailGators]

Is there room in your reality for geocachers who enjoy caches that you dislike (and the caches in question)?

Do you mean these guys?

<snip>

There are many of them and they have taken over all Wal-Marts....

Are you planning on giving a serious answer to any question?

I was wondering when you where going to realize that one of your legs was six feet long! People get way too serious in these threads. I was trying to lighten things up with the Star Wars analogy. I just hope that when people hide caches that the force is with them and that they can become a true Jedi cache hider!

[Mushtang]

As for having fewer caches, I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean it's not as if every book gets published, only the better ones. Yet, I have no lack to something to read.

I'm still wondering why the folks that dislike the lame hides, LPCs, micros, etc., don't filter out all the 1/1 caches and the micros.

 

This would seriously reduce the number of books in your library, leaving you with a selection that has a MUCH higher percentage of books you enjoy. But you'll still have no lack of something to read. You'll never read them all.

 

The argument, "Because it would eliminate the rare 1/1s and micros that I would enjoy. I've found a few before.", is a cop out. It's not worth missing a few good ones to help you locate a bunch of good ones?

[+Snoogans]

*yawwwn*

[+TrailGators]

*yawwwn*

Why do you keep coming back if it bores you?

[+KBI]

*yawwwn*

Tell me about it.

 

Every time this chronic topic comes up there are two claims that get repeated over and over by the usual suspects. The exact wording varies, but they generally go something like this:

 

• There are forum posters who actually prefer lame micros over more interesting and creative hides, and these people actively promote mediocrity over creativity.
  
• Lame micros are hurting the game.
  

Despite the regularity of these claims I have yet to see any proof, or even moderately convincing evidence, that they are true.

 

I think what’s actually happening is something more like this:

 

Some people prefer (and promote) lameness over creativity.

If you are the type of cacher who tends to claim victimhood every time some geocache fails to provide you with your minimum-acceptable thrill level (instead of taking responsibility for your own attitude when participating in an all-amateur sport such as this), and then someone comes along and tries to explain that hey, it’s okay, they can’t ALL be boffo, maybe the hiders and finders of those caches actually have different preferences than you ... I can see how a relatively shallow thinker might hear defense of lameness and mistake it for promotion of lameness. Or maybe there's more to it – I don't know, because I have never understood that mindset.

 

Lame micros are hurting the game.

If you are the type of cacher who feels that you are entitled to a certain minimum degree of convenience, or protection from disappointment, then I can see how a relatively impatient person might get annoyed at the fact that (1) there are caches out there that one might prefer to avoid, and (2) it takes a bit of effort to avoid them. I can also sort of see how that same relatively impatient person might then exaggerate those ideas in his or her own mind to the point that they become convinced that the game is falling apart. I personally have seen no evidence of any such damage to the game. Quite the contrary: in my observation, Geocaching is as vigorous and healthy as it has ever been. The other arguments – that the existence of “bad” caches limits the number of “good” ones, for example, or that mediocrity encourages mediocrity – just don’t hold water. I haven’t seen it.

 

No quotes, no links, no proof ... yet both of these claims keep getting repeated over and over, as if they were established and universally accepted dogma.

 

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

[+TrailGators]

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

Why don't you start by quoting something that was actually said in this thread....

[+KBI]

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

Why don't you start by quoting something that was actually said in this thread....

I was reiterating statements that have been expressed repeatedly in this very thread – and every other thread where this debate has sprung up.

 

Can I assume from your response that you either (1) do not agree with either of those two claims, or (2) agree with one (or both) of them, but have no proof to offer?

[+TrailGators]

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

Why don't you start by quoting something that was actually said in this thread....

I was reiterating statements that have been expressed repeatedly in this very thread – and every other thread where this debate has sprung up.

 

Can I assume from your response that you either (1) do not agree with either of those two claims, or (2) agree with one (or both) of them, but have no proof to offer?

I could care less. I've been ignoring tons of caches. I have my own little Gong show going. Can you name this guy?

[+KBI]

Can you name this guy?

According to my fond memories of the Seventies (and your URL tag) it's Chuck Barris.

[+KBI]

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

Why don't you start by quoting something that was actually said in this thread....

I was reiterating statements that have been expressed repeatedly in this very thread – and every other thread where this debate has sprung up.

 

Can I assume from your response that you either (1) do not agree with either of those two claims, or (2) agree with one (or both) of them, but have no proof to offer?

I could care less. I've been ignoring tons of caches.

I'll take that response to mean that you either (1) do not support either claim, or (2) have no proof.

[+TrailGators]

Would any of the Chronic Complainers be willing to put up some sort of convincing proof of either of these two tired old claims?

Why don't you start by quoting something that was actually said in this thread....

I was reiterating statements that have been expressed repeatedly in this very thread – and every other thread where this debate has sprung up.

 

Can I assume from your response that you either (1) do not agree with either of those two claims, or (2) agree with one (or both) of them, but have no proof to offer?

I could care less. I've been ignoring tons of caches.

I'll take that response to mean that you either (1) do not support either claim, or (2) have no proof.

Go ahead and put words in my mouth. It wouldn't be the first time....

[+KBI]

Go ahead and put words in my mouth. It wouldn't be the first time....

I've just given you two chances to express your own words. Both times you chose not to do so. I did the best I could do with your voluntary non-response.

 

Here's your third chance: Was my assumption correct, or was it incorrect?

[+Snoogans]

*yawwwn*

Why do you keep coming back if it bores you?

 

 

The closest I can liken it to is when I get a piece of popcorn kernel stuck between my tooth and gum and I don't have any dental floss to work it out.

 

 

You know the feeling. It's nothing pressing or even all that irritating. You tryyy to forget about it, but your tongue keeps flicking at it seemingly on its own.

 

 

This thread is kinda like that now.

[+TrailGators]

Go ahead and put words in my mouth. It wouldn't be the first time....

I've just given you two chances to express your own words. Both times you chose not to do so. I did the best I could do with your voluntary non-response.

 

Here's your third chance: Was my assumption correct, or was it incorrect?

I don't want to get sucked into another pointless argument. We all have our opinions. Opinions are not fact. Let me ask you something: If a new people try caching and get turned off by finding mainly YNWs and then quit, is that good for the game? If many oldbies get tired of an over-abundance of YNWs and quit is that good for the game? We have lost some very creative hiders. I would have paid to find more of their caches. They were that entertaining. Imagine if we tipped $0 to $10 to cache owners for entertaining us. Any bets on how profitable your defendees would be? Edited July 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

*yawwwn*

Why do you keep coming back if it bores you?

 

The closest I can liken it to is when I get a piece of popcorn kernel stuck between my tooth and gum and I don't have any dental floss to work it out.

 

 

You know the feeling. It's nothing pressing or even all that irritating. You tryyy to forget about it, but your tongue keeps flicking at it seemingly on its own.

 

 

This thread is kinda like that now.

[+TrailGators]

*yawwwn*

Why do you keep coming back if it bores you?

The closest I can liken it to is when I get a piece of popcorn kernel stuck between my tooth and gum and I don't have any dental floss to work it out. You know the feeling. It's nothing pressing or even all that irritating. You tryyy to forget about it, but your tongue keeps flicking at it seemingly on its own. This thread is kinda like that now.

It's funny how you can feel something sooo small. I've gotten the tiniest slivers in a finger and it will bug the crap out of me to the point where I'll grab a needle and dig it out making a worse wound than the sliver made trying to get the dang thing out. Actually, in this thread I've been joking around almost the entire time. There's nothing more I can really say that hasn't been said. When it all comes down to it....___ Happens! Edited July 8, 2007 by TrailGators