Premium caches

[+IDSTreno]

Just thought I'd let you know, the last found log was February 14th 2009, nothing but DNFs after that and no posts by the owner verifying it's in place....

 

I also think it's fine to log it if you find it, If someone wants to find something bad enough they will, and doing this without coords would be harder, The main reasons PM caches exist are to encourage people to support the site keeping free caches free, and if you feel you will purchase a membership one day, then you shouldn't feel to bad about it, If he deletes your log, appeal, but its certainly not against the rules.

 

 

Also, this cache looks like a complete waste of time, a 3 difficulty rating shouldn't go unfound in the middle of town for over a year, it is also the only cache of his that hasn't been found this year, With our hides, if it goes unfound for more then 3 months and it's not winter, we at least go out and perform cache maintenance to ensure it's still there and hasn't been muggled, we also post a note or owner maintenance on the page to let people know we did so they have a reason not to give up.

[+sbell111]

 

I thought I did that.

 

QUOTE(NeecesandNephews @ May 2 2010, 10:33 PM)

I am curious as to why this one smiley on this one cache is so important to you. I mean, what is it exactly you hope to accomplish by forcing this issue?? Just asking.

 

Never mind...

 

I am glad we agree then because that question pre-judged the fact that I was forcing anything.

All I asked Groundspeak for was the rule on this to avoid possible future conflicts.

 

Stanolli I don't know you personally nor you me. I was not trying to stir dissent. I was just asking. Perhaps too much "tone" is being read into our posts. The reason I chose the wording "force the issue" as well as "seems like a lot of trouble" is, regardless of the original intent of the CO as to why he made his cache PMO, I suggest (by his deletion of your found it) that his intent was obviously to exclude BM's from seeking, finding, and logging it. I'm sorry if you do not agree, but trying to involve Groundspeak in reinstating your found it log, against the wishes of the CO, is "forcing it". You dont seem to see it that way, and you are entitled to your opinion!

 

I have no particular stance on whether he is "right or wrong" with regards to the Guidelines, in doing this. It seems nevertheless "his intent". I believe his deletion makes this apparent.

 

The "trouble" comment was directed at your effort to have this one smiley reinstated, by taking it to Groundspeak. It is plain to see that you feel it was no "trouble" for you, but I doubt the Lackeys dealing with it in the offices of Groundspeak feel the same way. No such "trouble" accompanies any cache I log. I am a PM so I have no problem logging any caches I find.

 

Notwithstanding the Guideline issue, I believe this comes down to simply respecting the wishes of a CO who has paid for his membership, placed a cache with the PM only designation, and obviously monitors his logs. I don't think he did it with the intention to slight your free membership status in any way. I think many cachers are quick to take offense to this when no ill purpose was intended. There are also some cachers who seem to have an "unfair" (IMHO) sense of entitlement. The totally free status on which your enjoyment of the game is based, is provided in part by this CO, who not only paid his membership, but placed a cache. I think it is a small thing to respect and appreciate his reasoning and his wishes. That is all I was trying to say. It is no reflection on your "membership status" and I do not say this with any preconcieved notion that PMs are "better" or "higher up" on the food chain. It is not, by any means, meant to imply that the PM CO should have special recognition or treatment. Its simply a matter of common courtesy. I wonder if, in deference to BM's, this is the reason the CO has placed both PMO and normal caches. I can't know that as I am not him, but its something to think about.

 

As far as "future conflicts" you mention, observing that "simple courtesy" would serve the same purpose as a ruling from Groundspeak.

 

If some CO, for reasons unknown to me, chose to delete one of my found it logs, I would certainly email or PM him to ask why, but even if he did not respond, would take it no further. Its just a smiley, and I can replace it with another easily enough. I would also refrain from searching that CO's caches in the future. But thats just me. I just think its much-ado over nothing.

Your entire argument is built on the premise that it is perfectly fine for a cache owner to blatently ignore the guidelines. You should factor in the simple fact that 'simple courtesy' (to TPTB and the community) demands that cache owners follow the guidelines. Edited May 5, 2010 by sbell111

[+baloo&bd]

The reason that they found it and should be able to log it, that I believe sbell said earlier, should be more than enough reason.

 

I tried to do a quick search where Jeremy had said his intention was that GC always be free (PM gives you additional features), but could not find it. Someone will pop up with it.

 

However I was able to find a few posts that apply. For instance, GC's intent was never to have MOC as an encouragement or sales tool for PM. Also, there are indications that Jeremy is fully aware of and sees no reason to close the backdoor so non-members CAN log MOCs.

 

OpinionNate even acknowledges that it is considered a feature and not a bug for NM to be able to log MOC.

 

When you look at these, as well as the post from Jeremy hopefully someone will find, the logs should be reinstated. Especially in light of the more recent ban of ALR's.

 

Methods for using the backdoor are discussed here.

[+thedeadpirate]

traditional geocaching itself will never be a pay to play service.

[+baloo&bd]

traditional geocaching itself will never be a pay to play service.

 

DANG! That didn't take long at all.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Your entire argument is built on the premise that it is perfectly fine for a cache owner to blatently ignore the guidelines. You should factor in the simple fact that 'simple courtesy' (to TPTB and the community) demands that cache owners follow the guidelines.

 

I do so love your psycic ability to tell me what "premise" my argument is based on. The correct way to word that would be "you interpret" my argument with that underlying "premise" in your mind.

 

You seem to miss the point entirely. But to humor you, I would call your attention to the fact if the BM Cacher who logs a PM cache had not done so, no "ignoring of the guidelines" would have occured. With that "sense of entitlement" mindset, yet again, you are trying to allow the BM cacher to log a PM cache he never should have found, and then quickly trotting out the guidelines, saying because he did, it should be allowed to stand.

 

Thats like LEO's trying to charge me with "possession of stolen property" when I found a stolen 3 thousand dollar plasma tv where a crackhead stashed it, and turned it in. Hey... the crackhead obtained it because the owner left the "back door" open. He knew he wasn't supposed to have it, but took it anyway. I suspected it was stolen when I picked it up and took it to the local precinct. But the LEO's are quick to point out from the "guidelines", it is stolen and I am in possession of it.

 

I am aware this is engaging in hyperbole, but the PM owns the cache. He has shown "simple courtesy" already, in deference to TPTB by his payment for his membership, and to cachers both PM and BM, by placing and publishing caches available for each. But there is that "sense of entitlement" again, you want something the CO never meant for you to have. And you are not interested in the steps the CO has already taken. He has already given, but you want him to give more. That is the "premise" of my argument.

 

And for all this "boo hoo, poor me, I cant afford a PM', I can't afford a ski trip either, but if I manage to get to Aspen, is it fair for me to expect you to let me use the lift ticket you purchased?? Pay the freakin thirty dollars!! Or pay the three month membership!! You could log all the PM caches you could possibly find in that time, get your oh-so-valuable smileys, and drop it. Its ten dollars! With the price of scrap metal these days, a CITO of one day would yield ten bucks worth of aluminum cans for crying out loud. Oh wait, I have that "sense" mentioned! I want someone to give it to me. Well if Jeremy stated that "traditional Geocaching itself will never be a pay to play service" then can't I twist those words like many seem to love to do, and demand all the same "traditional" caching priveleges everyone else has??

 

I have nothing against people playing for free. I draw the line when they want to use the benefits PM's paid for to gain "extras" for themselves. And then come here and berate them for it.

 

We can banter this back and forth for days. Bottom line is someone wants something. Without concern for how the person who has it, got it.Without making any kind of sacrifice themselves. Its pathetic.

*I have expressed what is simply my opinion on the subject. Dont like it? OK*

Edited May 6, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[jholly]

Your entire argument is built on the premise that it is perfectly fine for a cache owner to blatently ignore the guidelines. You should factor in the simple fact that 'simple courtesy' (to TPTB and the community) demands that cache owners follow the guidelines.

 

I do so love your psycic ability to tell me what "premise" my argument is based on. The correct way to word that would be "you interpret" my argument with that underlying "premise" in your mind.

 

You seem to miss the point entirely. But to humor you, I would call your attention to the fact if the BM Cacher who logs a PM cache had not done so, no "ignoring of the guidelines" would have occured. With that "sense of entitlement" mindset, yet again, you are trying to allow the BM cacher to log a PM cache he never should have found, and then quickly trotting out the guidelines, saying because he did, it should be allowed to stand.

 

Thats like LEO's trying to charge me with "possession of stolen property" when I found a stolen 3 thousand dollar plasma tv where a crackhead stashed it, and turned it in. Hey... the crackhead obtained it because the owner left the "back door" open. He knew he wasn't supposed to have it, but took it anyway. I suspected it was stolen when I picked it up and took it to the local precinct. But the LEO's are quick to point out from the "guidelines", it is stolen and I am in possession of it.

 

I am aware this is engaging in hyperbole, but the PM owns the cache. He has shown "simple courtesy" already, in deference to TPTB by his payment for his membership, and to cachers both PM and BM, by placing and publishing caches available for each. But there is that "sense of entitlement" again, you want something the CO never meant for you to have. And you are not interested in the steps the CO has already taken. He has already given, but you want him to give more. That is the "premise" of my argument.

 

And for all this "boo hoo, poor me, I cant afford a PM', I can't afford a ski trip either, but if I manage to get to Aspen, is it fair for me to expect you to let me use the lift ticket you purchased?? Pay the freakin thirty dollars!! Or pay the three month membership!! You could log all the PM caches you could possibly find in that time, get your oh-so-valuable smileys, and drop it. Its ten dollars! With the price of scrap metal these days, a CITO of one day would yield ten bucks worth of aluminum cans for crying out loud. Oh wait, I have that "sense" mentioned! I want someone to give it to me. Well if Jeremy stated that "traditional Geocaching itself will never be a pay to play service" then can't I twist those words like many seem to love to do, and demand all the same "traditional" caching priveleges everyone else has??

 

I have nothing against people playing for free. I draw the line when they want to use the benefits PM's paid for to gain "extras" for themselves. And then come here and berate them for it.

 

We can banter this back and forth for days. Bottom line is someone wants something. Without concern for how the person who has it, got it.Without making any kind of sacrifice themselves. Its pathetic.

*I have expressed what is simply my opinion on the subject. Dont like it? OK*

 

So I take it then that when a family finds a PM cache the kids that are not PM can't log the cache because they did not pay the $30? Seems a bit harsh to me, but I see your point. If that 11 yo wants to log the cache then he better get off his butt and go collect some cans.

Edited May 6, 2010 by jholly

[+NeecesandNephews]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

[jholly]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

 

Well, when you can get Jeremy to agree with your point of view the backdoor will disappear and the point is moot. Until then your going to have your undies in a bunch. As for paying the $30, I don't pay that so I can make my caches PM and then feel wronged when a BM logs the cache. I pay it for the PQ's.

[+sbell111]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

Seems to me that the only person feeling entitled is the cache owner who wrongly believes that he should be able to control who can and cannot go find the cache.

Edited May 6, 2010 by sbell111

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

When I hide a new cache and fill out an online form to list the cache - I have a choice to tick the following box:

 

"Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache."

 

Operative words appear to be "view this cache". I note the absense of the word "log" or any wording to the effect of ""Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to log this cache."

 

The intent of Groundspeak seems clear to me.

 

Where a url can be entered, unless the website owner sets up their .htaccess file and/or backend DB rules specifically to block/redirect specific access that page is publicly viewable and usable.

 

So to be able to claim only PMs may log a PM cache, it is tantamount to those ocassional websites you come across that have a silly EULA which forbids you from viewing or linking to the website without permission - in effect it's like saying you may not look at my house as you walk down the street without my express permission.

 

That is - it's already there, in public, it's publicly available and viewable and you have made no efforts to hide it or prevent it from being available - no law in the land is going to support your claim.

 

Going back to the 'back-door' method. The 'back-door' is actually an abstract term for just another sub directory or webpage on the server. There is no actual documented function in html, php or any other web language that literally reads 'if_cant_get_in_through_front_go_and_try_back_door()' or something like that - like you would a physical house. It's a URL that is available to all members - it's accessible the same way www.geocaching.com/seek is accessible - it's just undocumented - as in - it's not written down or publicised.

 

Once again, all seems pretty clear to me.

[+NeecesandNephews]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

 

Well, when you can get Jeremy to agree with your point of view the backdoor will disappear and the point is moot. Until then your going to have your undies in a bunch. As for paying the $30, I don't pay that so I can make my caches PM and then feel wronged when a BM logs the cache. I pay it for the PQ's.

 

So we are all off the hook because the owner left the back door open. Cool!! Do I get to keep the TV??

 

I cant say for sure as I am not him, but I seriously doubt the CO paid for PM just to find a reason to feel slighted. I know thats not the reason I paid mine.

[+baloo&bd]

If you do a search, and you will not have to go farther than looking at my recent posts since I am on another thread on this topic, you will find references to what I am about to say.

 

You seem to miss the point entirely. But to humor you, I would call your attention to the fact if the BM Cacher who logs a PM cache had not done so, no "ignoring of the guidelines" would have occured. With that "sense of entitlement" mindset, yet again, you are trying to allow the BM cacher to log a PM cache he never should have found, and then quickly trotting out the guidelines, saying because he did, it should be allowed to stand.

 

Now, I am interpreting this to mean you think that by logging it the BM is somehow out of guidelines or forced the CO to go out of guidelines. If it is the former, please show where. If it is the later, refer to your example below on the plasma.

 

Thats like LEO's trying to charge me with "possession of stolen property" when I found a stolen 3 thousand dollar plasma tv where a crackhead stashed it, and turned it in. Hey... the crackhead obtained it because the owner left the "back door" open. He knew he wasn't supposed to have it, but took it anyway. I suspected it was stolen when I picked it up and took it to the local precinct. But the LEO's are quick to point out from the "guidelines", it is stolen and I am in possession of it.

 

As convoluted as the logic of this example is (not sure which side you are falling on), what you are advocating is that if I found a wallet that someone had stolen than discarded it, the LEO arrested me for possession when I tried to turn it in. Just like the BM trying to log the find, I would be arrested for following the rules (guidelines) or in the case of GC, having the online log removed.

 

If the response seems confusing it is because your premise was so way our there even I can't believe I tried to follow it.

 

I am aware this is engaging in hyperbole, but the PM owns the cache. He has shown "simple courtesy" already, in deference to TPTB by his payment for his membership, and to cachers both PM and BM, by placing and publishing caches available for each. But there is that "sense of entitlement" again, you want something the CO never meant for you to have. And you are not interested in the steps the CO has already taken. He has already given, but you want him to give more. That is the "premise" of my argument.

 

While the CO may "own the cache, they do not own the listing, nor do they own the site where it is logged, TPTB have left the backdoor there to entitle their users to be able to log it on the site they own. Jeremy has said on more than one occasion that the MOC is not intended as a sales tool or an incentive. It was a response to a request for higher security on the cache itself, however misguided that may have been. The bennie is that you can keep the details from being listed, however if you either own the cache and give someone the coords or someone is out caching with a friend who is a PM and they find it, the ability to log it has been provided. This is not even taking into account the non-cacher stumbling on it, the very reason the notes are in there.

 

And for all this "boo hoo, poor me, I cant afford a PM', I can't afford a ski trip either, but if I manage to get to Aspen, is it fair for me to expect you to let me use the lift ticket you purchased?? Pay the freakin thirty dollars!! Or pay the three month membership!! You could log all the PM caches you could possibly find in that time, get your oh-so-valuable smileys, and drop it. Its ten dollars! With the price of scrap metal these days, a CITO of one day would yield ten bucks worth of aluminum cans for crying out loud. Oh wait, I have that "sense" mentioned! I want someone to give it to me. Well if Jeremy stated that "traditional Geocaching itself will never be a pay to play service" then can't I twist those words like many seem to love to do, and demand all the same "traditional" caching priveleges everyone else has??

 

Setting aside you rather entitled sense of imposing what you think is a small amount of money is onto others, Jeremy has stated his intent that GC will never be "pay for play". Again, see end of response to last point. MOC were not meant to lock out finders.

 

I have nothing against people playing for free. I draw the line when they want to use the benefits PM's paid for to gain "extras" for themselves. And then come here and berate them for it.

 

Again, they're not asking for nor receiving any PM benefits or "extras" by logging PM caches, just using the system as designed and intended. They are also not taking away any benefit from a PM by logging it.

[+baloo&bd]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

 

Remove kids and family and insert "local ex-con", it still retains the same meaning. Letting the log of the BM on the MOC cache will still remain a perfect way to teach kids, or the ex-con, responsibility.

[+thedeadpirate]

See? My point accentuated. That "sense of entitlement". I paid for a PM so my kids, my Mom and Dad, Brothers and Sisters, all my friends, ect... should be entitled to log it if they were with me when I found it? I don't look for PM caches with someone who is not a PM. (nice touch though, playing on sympathy by using kids as an example. Perfect way to teach kids responsibility that same sense of entitlement)

Well, when you can get Jeremy to agree with your point of view the backdoor will disappear and the point is moot. Until then your going to have your undies in a bunch. As for paying the $30, I don't pay that so I can make my caches PM and then feel wronged when a BM logs the cache. I pay it for the PQ's.

So we are all off the hook because the owner left the back door open. Cool!! Do I get to keep the TV??

 

I cant say for sure as I am not him, but I seriously doubt the CO paid for PM just to find a reason to feel slighted. I know thats not the reason I paid mine.

First of all, it is the sense of superiority by some premium members that really turns a lot of people off.

 

Groundspeak introduced premium member benefits in such a way as to intentionally allow anyone to geocache for free but to encourage people to purchase subscriptions. I believe their intention was not to cause a divide between the haves and have nots. Premium membership does not mean you are any better than non-premium members. It just means that some things like paperless caching are a bit easier for you since you chose to support the website with your subscription.

 

As for the backdoor scenario you set up goes, it is irrelevant. Groundspeak did not just leave the backdoor open by accident. They made a conscience decision not to close that door. This is not the first time this topic has come up. Groundspeak is well aware that basic members can log premium caches and they are OK with it. As was pointed out earlier, creating a PMO cache simply means a basic member cannot view the listing. Nowhere does it say a basic member cannot log the cache.

 

If there's anyone you should have a beef with, it's with Groundspeak. If you don't like the way they've chosen to implement the PMO feature, you have a couple of options. You can try to get them to change it or you can stop paying your premium membership in protest.

 

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a basic member logging a premium only cache.

 

*** This post is my take on the situation based upon reading a number of threads on this subject over the years. Though I have not included links, I could likely be persuaded to do so if it is really needed.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Interesting direction this discussion is going in.

 

Allow me to clarify my "convoluted " logic.

 

Had the BM respected (see previous post far above) the PMs reasoning (whatever it was) that he wanted the cache restricted to PM's only, the illicit "unfair deletion" would not have taken place.

 

Forum members are accusing the CO of the crime of "unfairly deleting an online log" (possession of stolen property) which was logged by a "back door" method,( same way the crackhead got the tv). Some posters (like the example of LEO's) are saying that the BM's name is in the log so it should stand. (never mind how the crackhead got the tv, lets instead focus on the "guideline" violations committed by the person in possession) The CO is violating the guidelines, by deleting it.( in possession of the tv)

 

Now I pointed out it was hyperbole, but since you did not understand the logic behind me resorting to it, I have tried to explain.

 

The LEO/tv example is based on the "assumption" the tv was "stolen". There are statutes which apply to this.

 

Posters have claimed that the existence of a "back door" precludes the assumption that a BM's log of a PM cache is "theft". Perhaps I can better explain my opinion on the subject with a different analogy, using the same TV example. I am simply offering my opinion, and in regard to it, defending the CO who deleted the log.

 

Lets say the PM placed a PMO cache in the woods for reasons of his own personal enjoyment.. He believes he has the sole right of ownership as he purchased a PM, and believed the fact that it was listed as PM was enough to keep it secure.(from all but PM's) even if it was common knowledge it existed. He further believes that by being PMO even if a stranger happened to see it, they would not log it. He placed a second cache in the woods with open viewing indicating it was open to all members. A BM comes along and logs not only the cache that was open, but also through the back door, logs the cache that the PM intended to restrict. Upon discovering this, the PM deleted the log. Upon accusation, the BM insisted the back door was open, and by the mere act of listing caches, coupled with the open back door, implied that he could log both. The BM protests to Groundspeak to be able to keep his find under his interpretations. Lets say Groundspeak agrees, and lets him keep his find. Now the PM is upset that he paid for membership, placed a PMO cache, and the BM gets to keep his find.

 

Now lets make a TV analogy.

 

The plasma owner placed a tv in his living room for reasons of his own enjoyment. The owner believed the right to the tv was his alone, he bought it, and believed the fact it was in his living room made it reasonably secure. (from all but less than honorable persons) even if it was common knowledge he had it. He further believes that by it being in his living room, even if strangers happened to see it, they would not take it. He placed his old tv in the front yard with a sign on it that said "free tv". Joe BM comes along and takes not only the free tvf, but the one the owner intended to keep. Upon discovering this the owner called LEO. Upon accusation, Joe BM insisted the back door was open, and the mere posting of the sign that said "free tv", coupled with the open back door, implied that he could take both. Joe BM protests to LEO to keep the TV under his interpretations. Now lets say LEO agrees with him. The tv owner is upset that he paid for it, placed it in his living room, and Joe BM gets to keep his "find".

 

TPTB in both cases agree with Joe BM. Does that make it fair to the PM/tv owner? Joe BM could give a crap about fair. As seems to be the opinion of a lot of onlookers also. Joe BM was not satisfied with the "freebies". He gets to keep his additional "find" and the PM/tv owner gets the shaft. And everyone says "stop trying to force your opinions on others","TPTB have spoken". No one seems to notice the unfairness of this. How did the PM get shafted? He had to accept a find on his PMO cache by a BM. How does the BM get shafted? He doesnt. He gets to play for free, log caches that are not meant for him, and keep his "sense of entitlement" unchallenged because , god forbid, someone hide a cache he can't log. With this newfound courage and support from TPTB, how long will it take before he insists he get to log a find on a cache he hunted for, but did not find, simply because he hunted? Never mind... we already see evidence of that.

 

It comes down to the intent of the PM/plasma owner was. He had one he wanted to restrict/keep. He offered a free one to those that could not buy one. The open back door is no indication of his intent. So lets crucify him for deleting the log/calling LEO. All the while insisting the "free" membership/sign implied that Joe was entitled to log/take both.

 

In acknowledging those who would post about the implications of the "back doors" existence, please explain then, why it is not just published on the website with everything else. And if it was Groundspeaks intent to make all caches viewable and loggable to all members, what is the purpose of a PMO designation? Seems like a lot of programming trouble to go through for nothing.

[jholly]

Interesting direction this discussion is going in.

 

[Andronicus]

 

I do so love your psycic ability to tell me what "premise" my argument is based on. The correct way to word that would be "you interpret" my argument with that underlying "premise" in your mind.

 

The great thing about reading is that, when the writer isn't specific enough, and leave room for interpretation, the reader gets to interpret it how he/she wants.

 

You seem to miss the point entirely. But to humor you, I would call your attention to the fact if the BM Cacher who logs a PM cache had not done so, no "ignoring of the guidelines" would have occured. With that "sense of entitlement" mindset, yet again, you are trying to allow the BM cacher to log a PM cache he never should have found, and then quickly trotting out the guidelines, saying because he did, it should be allowed to stand.

 

The bolded part above is what you have wrong. I think that if you aligned that belief to match GroundSpeaks (and most of the forum posters), the rest of your argument would sort itself out.

[+NeecesandNephews]

First of all, it is the sense of superiority by some premium members that really turns a lot of people off.

 

I believe that "sense of superiority" as you describe it, takes a little different definition by those who have made a payment for their right to play.

 

Premium membership does not mean you are any better than non-premium members. It just means that some things like paperless caching are a bit easier for you since you chose to support the website with your subscription.

 

I agree that PM does not make one "better" than BM. However, it is the very support of the PM that allows BM's the "luxury" of having a site where they can play for free. Is a little gratitude too much to ask? And would not that gratitude be well displayed in the respecting a PM listing of a PMO cache?

 

The bolded part above is what you have wrong. I think that if you aligned that belief to match GroundSpeaks (and most of the forum posters), the rest of your argument would sort itself out.

 

Interesting that you can conclude that my "opinion" is wrong. Even more interesting is that you and many others, have this magical insight into what Groundspeaks "beliefs" are and can define their "intent" by reading the printed words on the website. I wish I possessed that intuition. So if I disagree with (most of the forum posters) I should just keep silent. ohhhh OK

[Andronicus]

The bolded part above is what you have wrong. I think that if you aligned that belief to match GroundSpeaks (and most of the forum posters), the rest of your argument would sort itself out.

 

Interesting that you can conclude that my "opinion" is wrong. Even more interesting is that you and many others, have this magical insight into what Groundspeaks "beliefs" are and can define their "intent" by reading the printed words on the website. I wish I possessed that intuition. So if I disagree with (most of the forum posters) I should just keep silent. ohhhh OK

 

First, I never suggested you should be silent.

 

Second, I do have magical abilities to know someone’s beliefs when they use printed words to convey them. It is called Literacy. I think you may have that power as well.

[jholly]

<snip>

Interesting that you can conclude that my "opinion" is wrong. Even more interesting is that you and many others, have this magical insight into what Groundspeaks "beliefs" are and can define their "intent" by reading the printed words on the website. I wish I possessed that intuition. So if I disagree with (most of the forum posters) I should just keep silent. ohhhh OK

 

I will say this about Groundspeaks beliefs. Once a site update broke the back door. It was pointed out in the forum the back door was broken. GS said sorry and quickly fixed the problem. It seems that GS is pretty intent on keeping this open and it seems they are pretty intent on allowing BM to log PM caches, regardless of what the PM might think or believe they are entitled to.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

<snip>

 

 

I think I just realised why you're persisting with your argument - though your persistence is to be admired, your logic and understanding of this website is flawed.

 

I notice you have no hides. I don't know if you've ever hidden a cache and listed it on geocaching.com - maybe you have but going by your profile you are unaware of terms and conditions all COs agree to when submitting a cache.

 

There are 4 checkboxes, 2 are optional, 2 are mandatory:

 

x Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache. (optional)

 

x Yes, this listing is active (For new listings, if you want to work on this listing before it is reviewed, uncheck this box. Reviewers will only see the listing in the queue when it is checked.) (optional)

 

x Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. (mandatory)

 

x Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement. (mandatory)

 

Having not listed a cache with geocaching.com before you probably haven't come across this form.

 

As I stated above - you have the option of making a cache PM/CM only - to "view this cache". Not "log this cache".

 

As I also stated above "back door" is an abstract term for accessing a page or function on the website which is undocumented.

 

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Undocumented does NOT mean forbidden. If it was forbidden then the BMs who are using this "back door" are essentially hacking the website illegally and it would be up to you to notify Groundspeak if you felt so inclined - and up to Groundspeak to

 

a. ) Close the "back door" and

b. ) Report the hackers to the police and have them arrested.

 

Now it's already been proved that Groundspeak

 

a. ) Are aware of the "back door"

b. ) Have not closed it

c. ) Have stated they will not close it

d. ) Have stated they have intentionally left it open and are happy to allow BM to log using it

 

So the final question for you is... is it worth carrying on your stance against such overwhelming evidence? On just a balance of probabilities the premium CO in this case is wrong, let alone a legal perspective.

 

 

edit: superfluous smileys

Edited May 6, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[+NeecesandNephews]

Not having an "argument". I thought this forum was for the open exchange of opinion and ideas, as I mentioned previously.

 

I do not look down on BMs. I do not tell someone their opinions are "wrong" or "convoluted" when I dont understand what they are trying to say.

 

I posted my opinion. When it was pointed out that one reader did not understand it, rather than call him "dense" I tried to elaborate on it.

 

I have five cache pages in the works, and am awaiting permission issues to be resolved before I submit them. So thank you for calling my attention to what the listings pages say. (no sarcasm intended)

 

To quote your previous post I would point out the choice of words you used opens up a debate by itself.

 

So the final question for you is... is it worth carrying on your stance against such overwhelming evidence? On just a balance of probabilities the premium CO in this case is wrong, let alone a legal perspective.

 

So i should change my stance, because the "majority of forum posters" have absolutely no concept of showing the CO the "courtesy" of not logging his PMO cache when they are BM's? It was never a question of "legal" perspective. It was a question of not respecting the COs wishes. A CO who has contributed both time and money to the game. Who supports the site. Who places caches for PMs and BMs alike. Does that make him a saint? No. But certainely worthy of the respect you would afford any other cacher.

 

As I pointed out in an early post, its just one smiley. Its ironic that people are so quick to point out the beating of a dead horse, or the repetition of this basic discussion in many threads, name-calling about "elitists","control freaks", posts that the existence of the back door is the green light to disrespect this CO, talk about it being "just a game" "lighten up" "dont get your undies in a bunch", but let them have one single smiley deleted and it becomes a question of "legalities" "guidelines" "groundspeaks intent" and an incident of epic proportions, and get all out of shape at the mere insinuation of a "sense of entitlement".

 

But I am supposed to accept these thinly veiled insults, this advice to "calm down, or get a life" This insinuation that I am an elitist because I ponyed up thirty bucks, and on top of that, keep my mouth shut if my opinions might differ from the majority of posters here.

 

Jesus wept.

 

Sorry but my sense of PM superiority dictates that I have the exclusive right to post opinions that may differ from other posters here.(sarcasm)

 

I have appealed to all the readers sense of fairness and respect when it comes to other cachers. The CO that lists both PM and BM caches has shown that courtesy to each. The BM has literally thousands of caches they can find and log through the "front door". Why this is not enough for them,(not questioning whether GS allows it, supports it, or simply ignores it) is beyond my comprehension.

 

Even in my "convoluted" TV analogy, in pointing out that TPTB sided with the BM, I conceded it may be allowed. The underlying moral message I was trying to convey is, that doesn't always mean fair.

 

If all this fell on deaf ears, or the point escaped the reader, I tried.

 

And in regards to the caches I am preparing to publish, none of them are going to list as PMO.

Edited May 6, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

<snip>

 

 

Calm down dear, it's only a forum!

 

 

Look no-one's saying you don't have an argument - all I was saying is your persistence is admirable but flawed.

 

I understand where you're coming from when you discuss the "concept of showing the CO the "courtesy" of not logging his PMO cache when they are BM's", but this makes it an ALR - for the simple reason that the CO has no leg to stand on by requesting only PM log.

 

If I put a cache out and asked blue-eyed cachers to log it then fine. If I put a cache out then stated ONLY blue-eyed cachers can log it - despite the cache being mine to do as I please, the reviewers would quite rightly refuse to publish the listing because it's an ALR.

 

The onus of courtesy you mention is on the CO, not the seeker. It is courtesy for the CO to allow anyone who writes in the log book, to log online - even if he doesn't like them.

 

Technically - the website allows this

Policy-wise - Groundspeak allow this

 

So, since you are not arguing from a matter of Groundspeak policy or technical functionality - all you have left is an argument from courtesy - an ALR - which is expressly not permitted by Groundspeak.

 

Of course the CO is free to delist his cache, and put up a blog or something (which would allow online logs as comments) and then charge people $30 a time to go find it - I doubt he would get as much logs this way but perhaps he's happier to have less logs and be ignored.

 

He'd have total control then and could easily block unpaying loggers. If he wants to list his cache here, then he's got to accept the terms and conditions of this listing site.

 

I am trying to be reasonable with you, I don't think I've called you any names or trashed your points, all I've done is speak from what I know technically and what I know of Groundspeaks policy - I have no intention of entering into a duel with you, I thought maybe I could just slow you down in your tracks before you went too far...... we've all gone too far sometimes.

[+baloo&bd]

I posted my opinion. When it was pointed out that one reader did not understand it, rather than call him "dense" I tried to elaborate on it.

 

Wow, cry about perceived veiled name calling and then do it yourself.

 

For the record, I neither care if you agree with or are offended by the facts. I believe you are simply arguing for the sake of argument, a common problem in threads. In case that is not the fact, I will give one of those analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand you seem to like. However in n either case, the fact that you have continued this long refusing to consider facts as presented has become boring.

 

I built a house not so long ago. As with many of the other houses I have built, the city required me to do some things common to home building in most areas. They required me to put in a drive to their specifications, a sidewalk in front of the house since the lot was unimproved and put grass or some other acceptable (to them) type of landscaping on the area between the sidewalk and the street which, by the way, I do not own but am required to maintain. We'll call these things the TOU.

 

I maintain it to specs., keep the curb in front of my house clean from debris and maintain said parkway. I keep the sidewalk clean however per our agreement (TOU) the city will now repair the sidewalk if something happens to it through no fault of my own.

 

Here comes the hypothetical;

 

Because I maintain the curb in front of my house, I expect it to be only used by my friends that are visiting however someone has a party next to me on the street and their friends park there. I ask them to move and they refuse. Not only that, they're using my sidewalk to get to the neighbors house, the one I paid for.

 

I call the police and they say there is nothing they can do about it. The street as well as the sidewalk are public property. I counter that the people parked there are from out of state so in fact did not pay for and mainatin the street as I did through taxes and I most certainly paid for the sidewalk at that my wishes and intent were that they were only used by those who I want to, friends that bring me things. They side with the people parked in front of the house and the car remains.

 

The CO intentions are, due to the ALR ruling, irrelevant. This site and the listings on it remain the property of GC and GS once they are submitted and subject to their policies, whims and even moods if they so choose. The CO's $30 was to support the site, not buy additional "rights" perceived or otherwise. Jeremy's original intent for MOCs, as stated by him in the forums when they were implemented, was in response to the perception that they would somehow have some additional security and not as an incentive to get others to get PM status.

 

This is not a sense of entitlement or superiority argument, at least not against the CO and finder. It is about fairness, morals, character and integrity, all of which are exemplified when someone adheres to the TOU even when they think it is wrong or no one is looking or they think they'll get away with it.

 

If the CO did not understand the terms of use he signed when he submitted it, I'm not saying they're "dense", just incorrect.

 

I could give another analogy about law and "ignorance not being an excuse", but you should get the point by now.

 

By the way, I am fairly certain "Jesus wept" was not intended by the author to be used out of context and incorrectly quoted in a forum. Just wanting you to be sensitive to His intent.

 

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

Edited May 6, 2010 by baloo&bd

[+stanolli]

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

[+baloo&bd]

[Nevermind]

 

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Edited May 6, 2010 by baloo&bd

[Motorcycle_Mama]

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

 

Yep. This has always been the stated mindset of Groundspeak on this issue.

[+thedeadpirate]

I believe that "sense of superiority" as you describe it, takes a little different definition by those who have made a payment for their right to play.

<------- I am a proud supporter of geocaching.com.

 

I have absolutely no feeling of superiority. Well, I may, but not based on a $30 premium membership.

 

*** The last sentence is a joke.

 

Premium membership does not mean you are any better than non-premium members. It just means that some things like paperless caching are a bit easier for you since you chose to support the website with your subscription.

I agree that PM does not make one "better" than BM. However, it is the very support of the PM that allows BM's the "luxury" of having a site where they can play for free. Is a little gratitude too much to ask?

Yes.

 

Have you noticed the ads on the website? No? Log out of your premium account and then pull up a few listings? See them now? That's one way basic members help pay for the site. (not sure why premium members have to see them in the forums though)

 

ALL members make it possible for us to play this game. Some hide. Some seek. Some do both. Believe it or not, some do neither. But geocaching is a community based activity. It takes all of us and generally speaking all are welcome regardless of your financial standing.

 

Even more interesting is that you and many others, have this magical insight into what Groundspeaks "beliefs" are and can define their "intent" by reading the printed words on the website. I wish I possessed that intuition. So if I disagree with (most of the forum posters) I should just keep silent. ohhhh OK

First, you have just as much right to your opinion as anyone else AND you have the right to voice it if you like.

 

As far as magical insight into what Groundspeak's beliefs are, there's nothing magical about it. Groundspeak has addressed these issues before. Their most recent backing of stanolli's log being reinstated just further supports that they are fine with it.

 

I said it last time and I will repeat it again. If you OR a PMO cache owner has a problem with the way Groundspeak has chosen to implement this feature, then you should take it up with them. It is not a basic member's fault if they find and log a cache that Groundspeak allows to be found and logged.

 

If the sole reason someone purchases a premium membership is to ensure they can hide caches that a basic member cannot log, then they should probably request a refund.

[+roziecakes]

Honestly, I personally just bought the premium membership because I wanted to support Groundspeak. As a web developer, I know how costly it can be to maintain a website. I don't even use Pocket Queries (Except for the Myfinds pocket query so I can use the stats page I like to use).

[+Ddraig Ddu]

interesting point.

i don't think you can view a find you have logged if you were a PM when you found it, but then since you decided not to pay, even though you were paid up at the time and found it during that period, you then can't 'see' that find anymore.

[+NeecesandNephews]

You guys feel free to carry on without me. I concede you are all correct in your interpretations. Play the way you want to without concern for anyone else.

 

 

In truth... I quit reading at "courtesy is an ALR". What a wonderful outlook!!

[+thedeadpirate]

You guys feel free to carry on without me.

OK

 

*** This post acknowledges that this thread will likely come to an end now.

[4wheelin_fool]

You guys feel free to carry on without me. I concede you are all correct in your interpretations. Play the way you want to without concern for anyone else.

 

 

In truth... I quit reading at "courtesy is an ALR". What a wonderful outlook!!

 

Your opinion is what I advised a few years ago when ALRs existed and the cache owner had more discretion for deleting logs. I believed that a basic member really should ask permission before sneaking in the back door.

 

However, things have changed. A few ALRs were abused till they were all taken away. I remember a past discussion about a basic member's ALR which forbid a premium member to log it.. Some cachers had just turned them into bait for disputes.

 

The reality is that if they found it, they found it. The definition of "found" really should not have some double meaning in which a find is not really a find even if you had signed the logbook, because of some bizarre caste system randomly enforced. The change is for the better.

[+ihorn]

I made sure the PM with me was mentioned in the log and insisted that they took the FTF prize. I was polite in the logs and thanked the CO for the new caches, both of which had obviously taken some time to plan and construct. Both logs have now been deleted without any explanation and while I can possibly see there is a valid reason for my solo one to be removed should I take the team one any further? (I assume the CO cannot delete the PM's log for teaming up with me).

Hmmm... Curious as to what TPTB have to say about this. You could write to contact@Groundspeak.com (I think) and get a clarification. As has been mentioned, the back door it there for a reason. It could have been closed, but they didn't do that. The guidelines do specifically say that a legitimate log can not be deleted for artificial reasons like failure to met additional requirements. I mean, you weren't rude, abusive, used foul language, posted a spoiler or deleted illegal activity on your part, right? I can't think of any other reason at the moment that be proper to delete your logs.

 

It would be interesting to push this just a little bit more to see where it goes.

 

I'm not curious at all. I think they will re-instate the logs. That is exactly what you have to do Stanolli, write to contact@Groundspeak.com

 

Might take a few days, they're generally pretty busy.

 

And I'd forget about all this solo or with a premium member stuff. If a non member can log MOC's, a non member can log MOC's.

Agreed

 

I have to agree, I would like to see this pursued further. If not to clarify the 'backdoor" policy, at least to provide a "reference case".

 

I posted earlier in the thread, hypothesizing about the reasons CO's make their caches PM only, that if they really wanted logs from PM's only, they could make their cache a "challenge". But this would imply listing it as a Mystery/Puzzle and subject it to the "frequent filtering" of these in PQ's.

 

What about someone like me who used the upgraded premium membership from registering a Garmin to PQ PM caches so that they can find them later? I will not always be a premium member, but I can still search the caches. I dont see why I wouldnt be allowed to if I already have the coordinates to do so. Or am I totally in the wrong here?

[+stanolli]

Check out my earlier post ihorn. GS have reinstated my logs and confirmed that anyone can find and log PMO caches.

[+_Superman_]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

[+swfirefly]

Topics like this can take the enjoyment out of geocaching if you let it.

[Mr.Yuck]

Check out my earlier post ihorn. GS have reinstated my logs and confirmed that anyone can find and log PMO caches.

 

Actually, I missed that part!! It wasn't clear to me from your post #71 that it was actually re-instated.

 

Congratulations. And I told you so.

[+stanolli]

Check out my earlier post ihorn. GS have reinstated my logs and confirmed that anyone can find and log PMO caches.

 

Actually, I missed that part!! It wasn't clear to me from your post #71 that it was actually re-instated.

 

Congratulations. And I told you so.

Sorry Urkel at post #71 they hadn't put them back, but they did soon after.

You were one of the 'all' I thanked in the parallel thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...47717&st=50

[+Vater_Araignee]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

So sad to see individuals contradict themselves within one post.

[+ihorn]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

So sad to see individuals contradict themselves within one post.

 

Its not a contradiction really. They are just stating they would like to turn the tables so Premium Members might have a chance to know how it feels to be left out of finding the cache.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

So sad to see individuals contradict themselves within one post.

 

Its not a contradiction really. They are just stating they would like to turn the tables so Premium Members might have a chance to know how it feels to be left out of finding the cache.

And yet nobody is left out of finding a cache. Well the lazy and unimaginative are, but outside of that a BM doesn't need a PM to give them the coords to a PMOC in order to find it and a BM is allowed to log any PM cache that they find.

[+Cptnodegard]

I agree fully with that caches should be free. Yet i just put out a premium cache because it was a cryptex I worked hard on and didn't want destroyed. Ironically, the most obnoxious people I've come across in the geocaching world who I would actually think would bash it just for the sake of it are premium members, so I went back and changed it. I wish you could block out certain users from seeing your cache instead. Especially some of the more annoying FTF hunters who throw themselves into a car and never lets anyone else get a chance.

[jholly]

I agree fully with that caches should be free. Yet i just put out a premium cache because it was a cryptex I worked hard on and didn't want destroyed. Ironically, the most obnoxious people I've come across in the geocaching world who I would actually think would bash it just for the sake of it are premium members, so I went back and changed it. I wish you could block out certain users from seeing your cache instead. Especially some of the more annoying FTF hunters who throw themselves into a car and never lets anyone else get a chance.

 

So if those FTF hunters really get your undies in a bunch, make two sockpuppet accounts. Have one sockpuppet hide the cache and have the second one sign the cache before you set it out. It should give them fits for at least a couple caches. It certainly would be an entertaining thread to read.

[+Cptnodegard]

Lol that's actually a good idea, though not something I'd do. I don't really have anything against them, it's just that they never write anything interesting in the logs and just run out to get them. Maybe I should just wait until I move and see if there are more people who care about writing logs where I end up.

 

EDIT: That gives me an idea, wouldnt it be nice if you could set a mimnimum length a log would have to be to be approved? I'd certainly use that feature. Tired of seeing people who visit interesting caches sign with "Found it. TFTC!"

Edited May 8, 2010 by Cptnodegard

[+teadams]

I made sure the PM with me was mentioned in the log and insisted that they took the FTF prize. I was polite in the logs and thanked the CO for the new caches, both of which had obviously taken some time to plan and construct. Both logs have now been deleted without any explanation and while I can possibly see there is a valid reason for my solo one to be removed should I take the team one any further? (I assume the CO cannot delete the PM's log for teaming up with me).

Hmmm... Curious as to what TPTB have to say about this. You could write to contact@Groundspeak.com (I think) and get a clarification. As has been mentioned, the back door it there for a reason. It could have been closed, but they didn't do that. The guidelines do specifically say that a legitimate log can not be deleted for artificial reasons like failure to met additional requirements. I mean, you weren't rude, abusive, used foul language, posted a spoiler or deleted illegal activity on your part, right? I can't think of any other reason at the moment that be proper to delete your logs.

 

It would be interesting to push this just a little bit more to see where it goes.

 

I'm not curious at all. I think they will re-instate the logs. That is exactly what you have to do Stanolli, write to contact@Groundspeak.com

 

Might take a few days, they're generally pretty busy.

 

And I'd forget about all this solo or with a premium member stuff. If a non member can log MOC's, a non member can log MOC's.

Agreed

 

I have to agree, I would like to see this pursued further. If not to clarify the 'backdoor" policy, at least to provide a "reference case".

 

I posted earlier in the thread, hypothesizing about the reasons CO's make their caches PM only, that if they really wanted logs from PM's only, they could make their cache a "challenge". But this would imply listing it as a Mystery/Puzzle and subject it to the "frequent filtering" of these in PQ's.

 

While I have only placed one cache at the present time, I have 4-5 more in the planning stages. I did plan on making them PMO caches for one simple reason - virtually every cache that has ever been placed in the area I'm planning on using has been mugged!

 

With this discussion, I might just change my mind and place a couple for BM and see how they work out, then decide on the others.

[Capedcrusader]

Define *irony*;

 

opening a thread where most of the responses are bashing *elitist* ideas about Preemies deleting the logs of Basics and saying its a guidelines violation and reading how that is *cheating* and shouldn't be allowed, reading where Groundspeak says it isn't allowed, and then reading this,

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

they would like to turn the tables so Premium Members might have a chance to know how it feels to be left out of finding the cache.

wouldnt it be nice if you could set a mimnimum length a log would have to be to be approved? I'd certainly use that feature.

I wish you could block out certain users from seeing your cache instead.

Thats not right. People sure talk out of both sides of their mouth here.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Capedcrusader

[+_Superman_]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

So sad to see individuals contradict themselves within one post.

 

This could be fun.....I'll bite....Especially as a lit. major. Show me, oh wise one, where my contradiction was.

 

Please, don't give me a rambling 10 paragraph speech explaining how mars and venus are aligned on the moon in may next year so I couldn't possibly believe that I hate the idea of PM caches...

[+Vater_Araignee]

Hello, BrandonTidd Checking in.

 

You know what....As a Premium member, I will NEVER post a premium members only cache. EVERYONE should be allowed to take part in Geocaching to it's full extent even if they are in a financial hard time.... I would hope that they would turn to Gecaching as an inexpensive hobby, compared to a lot of others out there..... But if you guys want to deny people because they don't have the extra money...or they simply don't want to spend the 30$ for a website because they have other things to spend money on. That's up to you. But remember Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way.....If you choose to support the website and it's community, more pwer to you! You are helping to make the website stronger and get a bigger community. But you have to remember the community in all this! In a time of financial hardship, Should we be teling people NO! You cannot do this because you didn't put 30$ in the pool?

I guess I just am more fcused on the enjoyment of the sport than being crazy about not letting non premiums touch my caches!

 

Sometimes I wish I could make a basic member only cache, and see how you like it....

So sad to see individuals contradict themselves within one post.

 

This could be fun.....I'll bite....Especially as a lit. major. Show me, oh wise one, where my contradiction was.

 

Please, don't give me a rambling 10 paragraph speech explaining how mars and venus are aligned on the moon in may next year so I couldn't possibly believe that I hate the idea of PM caches...

A statement of enjoyment then a statement that shows dejection.

That might be tough to grasp so I'll point out a different contradiction.

The only way GS could prevent most Premium Members from getting a Basic member account is by charging for a basic account and requiring no two accounts to use the same CC number, billing address or paypal account.

There by negating your "Geocaching started out for free...and it should remain that way"

------------------------

Then we have the simple fact that any CO that deletes a legit BM log simply because it was on a PMOC, is wrong.

Spaz all ya want, it doesn't change facts.

Almost everyone who has any time in the forum knows that they cant delete unless there is a lack of signature.

Most of those that don't come to the forum end up learning by way of reinstatement that they can't delete them.

Those that don't learn, end up getting them selves in trouble with TPTB.

As for your dejected statement, I wish that you could make one too and I lived near you so that you would find out that the simple truths would hold in both directions. Just because a PM would have to work a little harder to find a BMOC doesn't mean they are being denied access to it or the smiley provided as currently holds with BM finding PMOC.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Vater_Araignee