Jump to content

Guidelines...


JPreto

Recommended Posts

In another topic the user NYPaddleCacher wrote something that really made me think:

 

Sometimes it seem like some view the guidelines as a challenge. Instead of trying to understand the reason behind the guideline, and comply with it, they'll come up with a semantic interpretation of the language that allows them to get away with something that the guideline is trying to prevent.

I gave my opinion that I transcribe here:

 

I totally agree with this... And when I see things like these, and talk to the reviewers or post something on a cache, I´m called CACHE COP!

 

But it´s the same in everything in life, some just think that they are "smarter" or "wiser" than others and don´t have to follow some guidelines made, in my opinion, to protect the quality of the game.

 

This is society, the majority wins. Like the reviewers say: "Work with the reviewers not against them" but the fact is, most people don´t like the reviewers, considered them "constrainers of the creative movement" and instead of helping them in their work, they try to bend the guidelines in order to have their wishes fulfilled.

 

These for me are egoist people, more worried about their personal objectives rather than a common objective that for me, in geocaching, should be:

 

"Have fun, respect the game, nature and others"

 

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

a- Like a game rule book?

b- Like some orientation ideas?

c- Like some words that idealists wrote?

d- Guidelines, never seen them...

e- Whatever!!!!

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

 

Thanks for the answers!!!!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

It depends. Are we talking about the Guidelines or the Geocaching 101 which is what was referenced in the original thread?

 

Guidelines I consider to be fairly regimented rules with exceptions possible is very specific situations.

 

Geocaching 101 I consdier as orientation ideas.

 

You also forgot the HELP CENTER, for me they are all the same:

 

Ideas/rules/guidelines made by the people who manage the listings about the game in geocaching.com!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

It depends. Are we talking about the Guidelines or the Geocaching 101 which is what was referenced in the original thread?

 

Guidelines I consider to be fairly regimented rules with exceptions possible is very specific situations.

 

Geocaching 101 I consdier as orientation ideas.

 

You also forgot the HELP CENTER, for me they are all the same:

 

Ideas/rules/guidelines made by the people who manage the listings about the game in geocaching.com!

 

I didn't forget the Help Center. It is linked to from the Geocaching 101.

 

The difference for me is that while the Guidelines should be just that, guidelines, they are actually enforceable by the reviewers and as such, in practice they are hard rules.

 

The Geocaching 101 is just information on how to play the game. There is really no way to force people to follow them so they remain just that, guidelines.

 

For instance, I do not log my finds online and there is not a thing anyone can do to force me to do so. But if I go to hide a geocache, the reviewer can force me to follow the "guidelines" or face archival of my geocache.

Link to comment

I didn't forget the Help Center. It is linked to from the Geocaching 101.

 

Also, the only thing I agreed to on this site were the Terms of Use and Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. You are required to check that you have read and agree to them before you are allowed to hide a geocache.

 

I don't recall checking any boxes stating that I read and agreed to the Geocaching 101, Help Center, or Forums prior to finding geocaches.

Link to comment

The difference for me is that while the Guidelines should be just that, guidelines, they are actually enforceable by the reviewers and as such, in practice they are hard rules.

Sorry not to agree... Here is a part of the guidelines that some reviewers don´t follow:

 

5. Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.

Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species.

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

 

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same: "Some reviewers follow, others don´t!"

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

It depends. Are we talking about the Guidelines or the Geocaching 101 which is what was referenced in the original thread?

 

Guidelines I consider to be fairly regimented rules with exceptions possible is very specific situations.

 

Geocaching 101 I consdier as orientation ideas.

 

You also forgot the HELP CENTER, for me they are all the same:

 

Ideas/rules/guidelines made by the people who manage the listings about the game in geocaching.com!

 

I don't see them as all the same but they are, in many places, inter-linked.

 

It may be also useful to point out that the actual title for the Guidelines is "Geocaching Listing Requirements / Guidelines". While some might claim "there are no rules", there are "requirements".

 

For me, I try to look at the rationale for the existence of a guideline. A good example is the infamous "no buried caches" guideline which currently states "If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed." As I see it, the rationale for the guideline isn't to keep geocachers from digging or creating holes. The purpose is to prevent/reduce the perception from land managers that geocaching is a game about buried treasure.

 

 

 

Link to comment

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same: "Some reviewers follow, others don´t!"

I think it's safe to say reviewers are more likely to enforce the guidelines (e.g., geocaches should be at least 0.1 miles apart) than they are to enforce geocaching 101 "how to" advise (e.g., "Write about your find in the cache logbook.").

Link to comment
Sometimes it seem like some view the guidelines as a challenge. Instead of trying to understand the reason behind the guideline, and comply with it, they'll come up with a semantic interpretation of the language that allows them to get away with something that the guideline is trying to prevent.

 

Yes, that does happen, however there is also an alternate interpretation to that rationale or position. Collateral damage from poorly thought out arbitrary guidelines that artificially restrict caching, sometimes need to be challenged. Sometimes they are challenged by the creativity of cachers "bending" the guidelines, not to evade the spirit of the guideline but to find workable solutions to artificial and arbitrary restrictions.

 

I totally agree with this... And when I see things like these, and talk to the reviewers or post something on a cache, I´m called CACHE COP!

 

But it´s the same in everything in life, some just think that they are "smarter" or "wiser" than others and don´t have to follow some guidelines made, in my opinion, to protect the quality of the game.

 

This is society, the majority wins. Like the reviewers say: "Work with the reviewers not against them" but the fact is, most people don´t like the reviewers, considered them "constrainers of the creative movement" and instead of helping them in their work, they try to bend the guidelines in order to have their wishes fulfilled.

 

These for me are egoist people, more worried about their personal objectives rather than a common objective that for me, in geocaching, should be:

 

"Have fun, respect the game, nature and others"

 

I would suggest refraining from "judging" cachers underlining motivations and stick to debating the issue of "guideline" bending, "Have fun, respect the game, nature and others" needs to be extended both ways. Frankly, self-righteousness tends to detract from the point NYPaddleCacher was making and you support.

 

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

Link to comment

The difference for me is that while the Guidelines should be just that, guidelines, they are actually enforceable by the reviewers and as such, in practice they are hard rules.

Sorry not to agree... Here is a part of the guidelines that some reviewers don´t follow:

 

5. Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.

Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species.

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

 

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same: "Some reviewers follow, others don´t!"

 

My apologies. I did not realize this was an agenda thread about how some reviewer follow and others don't. I thought you were asking what we, non-reviewers, thought.

 

I will bow out now. I don't want to get sucked into this one.

Link to comment

I would suggest refraining from "judging" cachers underlining motivations and stick to debating the issue of "guideline" bending, "Have fun, respect the game, nature and others" needs to be extended both ways. Frankly, self-righteousness tends to detract from the point NYPaddleCacher was making and you support.

I wrote my opinion, just that!

 

I try to compare the actions of people (generally speaking) with geocachers (a part of the people) and their actions in life.

 

I wouldn´t like to go into very deep fields but, if you see something that it is against a law and don´t act upon it you are cooperating with the action. For me, guidelines and help center are the law in geocaching!

 

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

Which is???????

Link to comment

My apologies. I did not realize this was an agenda thread about how some reviewer follow and others don't. I thought you were asking what we, non-reviewers, thought.

 

I will bow out now. I don't want to get sucked into this one.

 

You mentioned the reviewers... you put them here!

 

The difference for me is that while the Guidelines should be just that, guidelines, they are actually enforceable by the reviewers and as such, in practice they are hard rules.

 

As the people that enforce the "guidelines" but don´t enforce the "geocaching 101"... right?

Link to comment

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

For your consideration. If the tree is dead are you "harming the plant"?...

Come on... let´s define dead?

 

Because, I don´t know your knowledge on plants, the one I have shows me that until all plant cells are dead, the plant is still alive. Even if the plant seems dead, if a cell is alive, under specific conditions a plant can be regrown out from it. See "protoplasts" for your reference...

 

On the contrary on humans, the dead/alive status is very discussed since we cannot yet become "alive" again if only one cell is alive. At least until we can selectively differentiate cells from a single cell. Don´t put cloning here because it´s actually just Nuclear or DNA replication...

 

Do you want to go on with this?

Link to comment

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same

 

I guess you belong to a small minority then. The help center and the geocaching 101 contain many things that are purely meant to help someone looking for information, but are not meant as rules which harm someone when they are not

followed.

 

For example, some of the best caches I have ever found have been hidden by cachers with only a small number of finds and I have hidden my first cache soon too and that cache (by the way a comparatively complex multi cache) still exists after more than 11 years. Experience can make sense, but there is no simple rule for such cases.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same

I guess you belong to a small minority then. The help center and the geocaching 101 contain many things that are purely meant to help someone looking for information, but are not meant as rules which harm someone when they are not followed.

 

So what do you think of this Help Center article, just to put out an example.

 

Is it something you should follow, like a rule or just a idea? I see it as a rule!

Link to comment

I need to stop letting JPreto push my buttons. That's twice in just a few days where he has started a topic where I felt compelled to make some snarky response and did so without taking the time to put my thoughts together and checking my facts, or using the forum quote in a inappropriate way.

 

So here's a more thoughtful response:

 

In general I see geocaching as a light fun activity that doesn't need many rules. Someone hides a cache. They post the coordinates on geocaching.com. Other people go and find the cache. Of course, given the anonymous aspect of the internet we have players who may participate in ways that aren't beneficial or fun for other players. But even here, I'm willing to accept the dangers of the internet and not get my knickers in a twist because someone used a Found It log when they should have used a note or a DNF or where someone checked that they've read the guidelines when they haven't.

 

In keeping with this approach, I'm likely to view most of the guidelines, rules, help center articles, and April Fools stories in the geocaching blog, as suggestions for improving the fun people have and not as rules where we need to embarass people with scarlet letters when they're not followed 100%.

 

I will point out that the guidelines are guidelines for listing of caches on Geocaching.com. Other than saying that Groundspeak is a private company and may make any rules it wants for using Geocaching.com as a listing service, I will point out that most (but not necessarily all) of the guidelines seem to have a clear rationale. Some are meant to protect Groundspeak's business model - for example you can't use the cache listing to get free advertising. Others are meant to protect the game of geocaching - certain land managers have concerns with burying or damaging property, so there are guidelines to limit this from happening. Other guidelines are there to resolve disputes between cache owners or between cache owners and finders. For example: an arbitrary distance between caches prevents one hider from placing a cache right on top of another's cache, and caches owners may delete logs only under certain conditions.

 

My attitude with respect to the cache listing guidelines is that no one should be surprised if your cache is not published due to the guidelines; or if your cache is archived, either with or without warning, should a reviewer become aware of a guidelines violation after publication. At the same time I accept that in addition to sometimes being human and making mistakes, that reviewers are given some leeway in the interpretation of most guidelines. One reviewer may publish a cache that another one rejects. I see nothing in the guidelines that requires me to report issues to reviewers, but I have no issue if someone reports a perceived guidelines violation and lets the reviewer sort things out. Either a needs archive or a private message to a reviewer will do. Objections to reviewer decision are best handled by the appeals process instead of being debated on the forums, though I must admit that threads on specific caches are often the only information we get from Groundspeak or the reviewers on the "official" interpretation of the guidelines.

Link to comment

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

For your consideration. If the tree is dead are you "harming the plant"?...

Come on... let´s define dead?

 

Let's not. The rationale for that guideline is not to prevent the harming of plants. It's to prevent harming the game.

Link to comment

Somewhere halfway between A and B.

I see a difference between "guidelines" and "rules". Rules must be specific and require or prohibit specific action or behavior, with actual consequences for straying. Guidelines allow "wiggle room" and greater interpretation.

 

As toz stated, the guidelines are in place for the purpose of Groundspeak listing the cache...a way for them to allow for this very public game to exist without bringing all sorts of trouble down on themselves due to damage or abuse that might otherwise occur. It's a complete CYA move and they've made it all fairly reasonable, in my opinion.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

For me guidelines or geocaching 101 or help center is all the same

I guess you belong to a small minority then. The help center and the geocaching 101 contain many things that are purely meant to help someone looking for information, but are not meant as rules which harm someone when they are not followed.

 

So what do you think of this Help Center article, just to put out an example.

 

Is it something you should follow, like a rule or just a idea? I see it as a rule!

Rules are golden and those with the most gold make the rules. Just one more reason I like this silly hobby of geocaching, it is not to be taken seriously, it's just a game. :anicute:

Link to comment

I didn't forget the Help Center. It is linked to from the Geocaching 101.

Also, the only thing I agreed to on this site were the Terms of Use and Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. You are required to check that you have read and agree to them before you are allowed to hide a geocache.

 

I don't recall checking any boxes stating that I read and agreed to the Geocaching 101, Help Center, or Forums prior to finding geocaches.

The problem is, there are 15 links in the guidelines that point to the Help Center. To pick out one example, one of those linked-to Help Center articles covers the challenge cache guidelines. In that case, there are strictly enforced guidelines that aren't included directly on http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx.

 

Basically, the Help Center is a mishmash of both guidelines and FYI-type information. What they really need to do is clearly separate the guidelines from everything else, so everyone knows what is and isn't allowed. JPreto's example of the throwdown article is a good example of this. Is it considered official policy that can be enforced, or is it just a recommendation? Its residence in the Help Center doesn't tell us which category it's intended to be included in.

 

As for the original question, my answer is a combination of The_Incredibles_'s and NYPC's. I see the guidelines as rules that should be followed as closely as possible, with some obvious exceptions (ie. labelling a nano). I also make sure I understand the rationale behind the guidelines, not just the specific wording of the guideline. For the most part, the guidelines (or at least section I. PLACEMENT Guidelines) are meant to keep geocaching on the good side of land managers and the public in general. Trying to find a loophole in the wording of a guideline may allow someone to make a more "creative" cache, but it also puts the future of the game in jeopardy by potentially giving the game a black eye.

 

I'd much rather find average and above-average caches in a park than find none because the "creative" ones caused the land manager to ban geocaching.

Link to comment

I view the guidelines as guidelines. They are designed to make the game run more smoothly. If a reviewer thinks that there are cases in his area where the game will run smoothly even if a guideline is not rigidly enforced, that's fine. On the other hand, if a CO argues with a reviewer about a guideline, that's not smooth.

 

I've noticed that there are a few guidelines that were added specifically to avoid the CO/Reviewer relation getting to the point where the CO could think it would be worthwhile to argue. The one prohibiting virtuals comes to mind. So a CO that finds himself up against a guideline he doesn't like might want to consider working with the reviewer to avoid arguing a new guideline into place.

Link to comment

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

For your consideration. If the tree is dead are you "harming the plant"?...

Come on... let´s define dead?

 

Let's not. The rationale for that guideline is not to prevent the harming of plants. It's to prevent harming the game.

And the problem with the nail in the tree is not just possibly harming the tree, but defacing property.

Link to comment

So what do you think of this Help Center article, just to put out an example.

 

Is it something you should follow, like a rule or just a idea? I see it as a rule!

Funny. That's the post you made that got me a few days ago.

 

Which part of that do you see as a rule?

 

There is a section describing what a throwdown is. In this section is a statement that "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find." This is hardly a rule, is seems to be clearly just a suggestion. I happen to agree with the first part: Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner, but the rationale about confusing the "real" container and the throwdown is a bit hokey. Most geocachers are happy to find a container. It's only a few cache owners who make a big deal over someone logging the wrong container.

 

The second section gives the "policy". Primarily the policy is that the caches owner is responsible for dealing with throwdowns. That pretty much gives the cache owner the ability to either accept the throwdown or reject it. The main gist is that the cache owner may delete the found it log of person who left the throwdown and that the cache owner can remove the throwdown container.

 

The policy does tell the cache owner that "as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed". I do not believe that a reviewer would archive a cache just because the cache owner didn't remove the throwdown. It seems that even if a cache owner were to check there are too many possbilities: the cache owner may not find the throwdown, they may not find their original cache, or it could be they find neither and leave a third container, just adding to confusion. Maybe it is intended as a rule and reviewers are going to start archiving caches where the owner doesn't check and remove the throwdown (if the orginal cache is there and the owner finds the throwdown), but I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak doesn't want to create rules just to make more work for cache owners and reviewers and this is just a suggestion to cache owners of one way they can deal with throwdowns.

Link to comment

So if you place a birhouse in a tree with nails/screws you are harming the plant, right? But some reviewers allow caches like these to be published...

For your consideration. If the tree is dead are you "harming the plant"?...

Come on... let´s define dead?

 

Let's not. The rationale for that guideline is not to prevent the harming of plants. It's to prevent harming the game.

And the problem with the nail in the tree is not just possibly harming the tree, but defacing property.

 

Which, in the end, may harm the game.

 

 

Link to comment
a- Like a game rule book?

...

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

"If we don't point you in the right direction, there'll be anarchy, so ... *shrug* ... here are some rules - now please stop squabbling and go play nicely" :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I didn't forget the Help Center. It is linked to from the Geocaching 101.

 

Also, the only thing I agreed to on this site were the Terms of Use and Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. You are required to check that you have read and agree to them before you are allowed to hide a geocache.

Just a point of clarification, the only thing anyone is "required" to do is click in a box, the meaning behind the checking of those boxes is many times missed. Witness the number of caches placed that are contrary to the guidelines.

 

Maybe the OP should add an option for "G: I clicked the box because I needed to"

Link to comment

Just a point of clarification, the only thing anyone is "required" to do is click in a box, the meaning behind the checking of those boxes is many times missed. Witness the number of caches placed that are contrary to the guidelines.

 

Maybe the OP should add an option for "G: I clicked the box because I needed to"

 

Nice one - I'd bet that G is the most common option out there in the real caching world. :)

Link to comment
:laughing: There was a box?!! :laughing: I am a simple man with simple thoughts, but this is how I see it. This is a listing service by a private company. That makes it their house. They call the shots and can ask their guests to leave if they wish. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys, Neo. GS called them guidelines. I have to believe that they did this intentionally. They did not call them rules, or laws, or orders passed down by the high council. They wanted guidelines so that they could allow us our creativity. Where rules are rigid and result in loopholes and ever changing subsections to keep up with a constantly evolving, ever changing game, guidelines are soft and flexible while directing our paths. Not forcing us down a particular predetermined path. But it's still their show. To have the flex accepted, we are to contact our reviewers. Let them no what we are thinking. Have a mature, adult like, conversation with them. Then they have the ability to allow bending or if they see potential for future issues, they can deny with the guidelines behind their decision backing them up. When a company has been around for a period of time, it seems to be human nature to think that the customers create the demand and therefore have a say. We must remember that we are visitors. It's their home field. They have tried to allow us as much creative room as possible while still assuring a future game for their business to list. What letter that fits under is up to you. That's just my thoughts. But I am just a simple man with simple thoughts.
Link to comment
But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:
When I'm hiding a cache or when I'm planning a hide, generally I treat the guidelines as hard rules. But I take a much more relaxed approach when finding others' caches.

 

For example, I would not try to hide a cache closer than 528ft/161m to another cache, or a puzzle cache further than 2mi/3.2km from its posted coordinates. But I know that exceptions are occasionally granted, and I know that even without exceptions, there are innocent reasons for these guidelines to be "violated". So I'm not about to post NM or NA just because I find a cache that is "too close" to another, or a puzzle cache that is "too far" from its posted coordinates.

 

So what do you think of this Help Center article, just to put out an example.

 

Is it something you should follow, like a rule or just a idea? I see it as a rule!

Maybe I've been working in the software industry for too long, but in general, I hesitate to insist on something the guidelines say you "should" do. In this particular case, I'd say that "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner" is pretty close to a rule, rather than a mere suggestion. But I know there are others who think they're "helping" the cache owner by leaving a throwdown. And I know there are owners who would rather accept a throwdown than make a maintenance run to replace one container with another (especially for puzzle caches and other caches where the find itself is intended to be straight forward). If I discover that I found a throwdown instead of the original container (or a CO-approved replacement), then I am probably not going to post a NM/NA or delete my Find.

 

But I do realize that Groundspeak's guidelines don't really follow RFC 2119's definitions for "must", "should", "may", "must not", etc. In practice, many of the things the guidelines say "should" happen are really hard requirements (i.e., a "must"). When the guidelines are intended to be more flexible, then they use language that is even softer, like "We encourage you" or "Think about" or "at the discretion of the cache reviewer".

Link to comment

Like most things in life, guidelines are situational. That's why they are not rules - they are designed to be flexible. It is oft pointed out that no two Reviewers always interpret a guideline the same way, or that a Reviewer does not apply a guideline the same way every time. Everything depends on the situation.

 

Each guideline has a purpose, a reason it was written. There never will be a guideline for every specific situation, but the guidelines cover any situation, because they can be adapted.

 

If you need hard and fast rules to live by then guidelines will likely leave you frustrated. There are some who must be told exactly what to do or they don't know how to function. Then there are some who can make up justification for anything they want and believe that they can bend or break guidelines to suit their purpose. Both of these groups are well served by our body of Reviewers.

 

I don't think a cacher is being a cache cop by questioning how a guideline was 'bent' to a situation until that cacher makes a habit of looking for and making a big deal of every variance. Or gets on a crusade with her own agenda, gleefully reporting every guideline variance (or outright violation), seeing it as their duty to 'clean up' or 'save' the game. The worst of those seem to want everyone to cache by their personal interpretation of the guidelines. Reviewers are given discretion for a reason. One exercise of that discretion may be to turn a bind eye to an egregious guideline violation.

 

Only extremists see the world in black or white... for most of us for most issues the answer is somewhere in the gray area.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Like most things in life, guidelines are situational. That's why they are not rules - they are designed to be flexible.

Try to say this to a big company Brand Manager!!!! :D

 

For me, guidelines are rules aplied to a specific set of situations or events. Like all rules, there may be exceptions made by the authorities on that specific set of rules.

 

Example: A cop can see you speeding and not fine you. In this case the cop is disobeying 2 laws, one by not applying the law (misconduct) and another by defrauding the government (collusion), you only disobeyed one, speeding. A reviewer can know you place a buried cache and allow you...See my point?

 

The case here is that in "real life" people make decision that are convenient for their interests and if a person feels that the law is not that fearful so, let´s break it in our interests.

 

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

 

Back to the first point, for what I see each geocacher feels that he should play the game the way he wants but the fact is, the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants! This is my point of view!

 

For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

 

Most sports have Federations/Associations that manage that sport´s rules. In this case our Federation/Association is Groundspeak which is privately owned, like most Federations/Associations:

 

Soccer - FIFA

Basketball - FIBA or NBA

Tennis - ITF

Golf - R&A or PGA

 

When you play any of these sports do you try to play by the rules or do you try to bend the rules?

 

Let´s put Soccer, just as an example: If you throw yourself to the floor pretending to have been fouled you get a Yellow card. This rule was made up not long ago because players would try and trick the referee simulating that the other player tackled them when that wasn´t the fact. This is a clear example of 1) players trying to bend the rules and 2) the rules adapting to the new situations.

 

Again I ask, what type of player you are? And why do you think guidelines are not rules?

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

The guidelines are rules, mostly, whereas the Help Center and GC101 are suggestions, advice, and explanations. Within the HC and GC101, they further expound on the guidelines, but that's only to support the 'rules', not to be the rules, in my opinion.

 

The reason that I stated that the guidelines were 'mostly' rules is because there are some things that are included in the guidelines that are clearly suggestions, not rules. The perfect example is "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one." That is not a rule that one must find 20 caches prior to placing one. It is a suggestion and it is written as such.

Link to comment
For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

I think that a big problem that we have is that people don't actually make much of an effort to understand the listing guidelines. For instance, the guidelines specifically state that physical stages of a multi-cache are not constrained by the 0.1 mile rule:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guideines even have a graphic to explain this concept.

Link to comment
For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

I think that a big problem that we have is that people don't actually make much of an effort to understand the listing guidelines. For instance, the guidelines specifically state that physical stages of a multi-cache are not constrained by the 0.1 mile rule:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guideines even have a graphic to explain this concept.

Busted. Now that right there is funny.

Link to comment
For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

I think that a big problem that we have is that people don't actually make much of an effort to understand the listing guidelines. For instance, the guidelines specifically state that physical stages of a multi-cache are not constrained by the 0.1 mile rule:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guideines even have a graphic to explain this concept.

 

Maybe I´ve explain myself badly... multi-caches physical stages in respect to other caches, not within the same geocache. <_<

Link to comment
For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

I think that a big problem that we have is that people don't actually make much of an effort to understand the listing guidelines. For instance, the guidelines specifically state that physical stages of a multi-cache are not constrained by the 0.1 mile rule:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guideines even have a graphic to explain this concept.

Busted. Now that right there is funny.

Busted? Are you a cache cop???? :ph34r:

Link to comment

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

I assume you're relating your perceptions about the reviewers with whom you've had dealings and not all reviewers. Our reviewers, for example, are both guideline enforcers and helpers/advisors. Even your reviewers might have worn both these hats when working with geocachers other than yourself. It's also possible that reviewers who have worked with you might remember situations where they've provided you with help and advice, which you might not recall.

Link to comment

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

I assume you're relating your perceptions about the reviewers with whom you've had dealings and not all reviewers. Our reviewers, for example, are both guideline enforcers and helpers/advisors. Even your reviewers might have worn both these hats when working with geocachers other than yourself. It's also possible that reviewers who have worked with you might remember situations where they've provided you with help and advice, which you might not recall.

I´m not saying they aren´t helpers/advisors sometimes... I´m saying that their main activity is guideline enforcing. For me it should be the other way around, and I´m saying that this fact is mostly because of us, the players, not all of us... but most of us, unfortunately!

 

Sure I speak for the reviewers I deal with, I can´t speak about the ones I don´t know nor deal with.

 

EDIT: Just one more thing, most if not all reviewers are also geocachers!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

I assume you're relating your perceptions about the reviewers with whom you've had dealings and not all reviewers. Our reviewers, for example, are both guideline enforcers and helpers/advisors. Even your reviewers might have worn both these hats when working with geocachers other than yourself. It's also possible that reviewers who have worked with you might remember situations where they've provided you with help and advice, which you might not recall.

I´m not saying they aren´t helpers/advisors sometimes... I´m saying that their main activity is guideline enforcing. For me it should be the other way around, and I´m saying that this fact is mostly because of us, the players, not all of us... but most of us, unfortunately!

 

Sure I speak for the reviewers I deal with, I can´t speak about the ones I don´t know nor deal with.

 

EDIT: Just one more thing, most if not all reviewers are also geocachers!

I suspect that it's just a matter of perception. From a reviewer's point of view, I bet that the focus is on getting caches listed. It's just that part of that process is a guidelines review.

Link to comment

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

I assume you're relating your perceptions about the reviewers with whom you've had dealings and not all reviewers. Our reviewers, for example, are both guideline enforcers and helpers/advisors. Even your reviewers might have worn both these hats when working with geocachers other than yourself. It's also possible that reviewers who have worked with you might remember situations where they've provided you with help and advice, which you might not recall.

I´m not saying they aren´t helpers/advisors sometimes... I´m saying that their main activity is guideline enforcing. For me it should be the other way around, and I´m saying that this fact is mostly because of us, the players, not all of us... but most of us, unfortunately!

 

Sure I speak for the reviewers I deal with, I can´t speak about the ones I don´t know nor deal with.

 

EDIT: Just one more thing, most if not all reviewers are also geocachers!

I suspect that it's just a matter of perception. From a reviewer's point of view, I bet that the focus is on getting caches listed. It's just that part of that process is a guidelines review.

One data could clear this point out:

 

"number of caches not approved to publish" vs "number of cases where geocachers asked for help before sending the cache for approval"

 

But I suspect we will never have that... Just a curious case of "published caches" vs "refused caches" would be nice for analysis. But I suspect that many caches need a "reviewer note" from the reviewer before being published... Even more in countries where geocaching is not big (like Brazil where I geocache) where some people place caches before knowing and understanding the game. I published my first cache only after 300 finds because I wanted to understand the game before placing any cache... and even after that, my first Multi-cache had some "reviewers notes" before being published, because it didn´t respect the guidelines. I corrected the mistakes and it was published.

 

Just for you to have an idea how small the game is in Brazil, there are today 12 (twelve) players in Brazil with more than 200 registered finds and only 7 (seven) with more than 300 registered finds! Total active caches is around 2000 (two thousand)...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...