Cache with an agenda?

[+gasbottle]

The PMO cache GC6RTVT was published near me recently. I've reproduced the entirety of the wording below:

 

Please bring a pen.

 

A great deal of work goes in to maintaining the website in order for our wonderful hobby to continually develop.

 

Premium membership contributes to this and is a relatively small cost to pay.

 

If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today.

 

If you choose not to support Geocaching by paying the small fee, please refrain from 'finding' this cache.

 

Existing Premium Members - thank you for maintaining the integrity of the game.

 

{There's also a photograph of a rock which I haven't reproduced here}

 

The wording as published followed the same theme but much of the wording above was added after publication.

 

It's a PMO cache, so I question the value of promoting membership to people who, by definition, already have it.

I particularly resent being preached to about 'moral integrity', doubly so when I've already demonstrated that I have it (at least, by the standards of this listing).

But mostly, this listing appears to have been created purely to promote the CO's agenda for enlarging paid membership.

 

So, what should I do?

• Should I just add this to my ignore list and not be so sensitive?
  
• Or should I raise it with the reviewer on the grounds that it contravenes the listing guidelines?
  

[+cerberus1]

I'd NA for an agenda and let a Reviewer deal with this arrogant expletives deleted.

Those who are a bit hesitant could send the Reviewer or Groundspeak a private mail.

 

I agree that it shouldn't have been published with this wording, and was probably done afterwards.

[+HHL]

I'd NA for an agenda and let a Reviewer deal with this arrogant expletives deleted.[...]

 

D'accord.

[+Touchstone]

Agenda with a capital A.

[+Manville Possum]

Toss it in a lake.

[+NanCycle]

It's a puzzle. Are you sure the wording isn't the puzzle? Somehow.

[+wmpastor]

Toss it in a lake.

Why - because it's a micro?

[+wmpastor]

It's a puzzle. Are you sure the wording isn't the puzzle? Somehow.

 

The only hints to the puzzle are the controversial text and the photo of a rock. One or the other (or both) both must have some hidden messages. Those ultra-tricky puzzles are what get me cussing!

[+narcissa]

NA the cache and shun the tyrant who placed it. That sort of note is a disgraceful way to treat other geocachers and such a person is beneath your regard.

[+Manville Possum]

Toss it in a lake.

Why - because it's a micro?

 

Yes, that was just an inside joke. There is another thread here about a muggle site that can't be mentioned.

 

After more facts were posted it seems just to be part of a puzzle cache, and those cache types are on my ignore list.

[+dprovan]

First, yeah, I don't see how that could not be called an agenda.

 

Me, I'd ignore it. I appreciate GS's no agenda policy, but I ignore hundreds of ads every day, and I can ignore this one, too. I'd leave it up to GS to detect and deal with it, or not detect it, or detect it and not deal with it, or whatever.

 

I'm OK if you feel a need to help out, but there's always a chance the text was, for one reason or another, approved by the reviewer, so if you want to alert GS, I'd avoid the public objection of an NA and, instead, privately point it out to the reviewer in case it's not something he knows about. A lesser approach would be to ask the CO: I'd phrase it as "This sounds like an agenda, but certainly the reviewer approved it, so it can't be. Perhaps you should explain in the description that it's reviewer approved to avoid people asking you about it all the time."

[+wmpastor]

NA the cache and shun the tyrant who placed it. That sort of note is a disgraceful way to treat other geocachers and such a person is beneath your regard.

 

Sounds like a tyrannical reaction to me!

 

It seems my theory - in the post immediately preceding yours - that the text is part of the puzzle cache and merely intended as chain pulling (which succeeded!) does not warrant consideration, in your opinion....

[+wmpastor]

That's one heck of a puzzle cache. Naturally we won't get into spoilers. The (fake) coords are well out into the water. There is no verbal hint. There's the text that has twisted some people's knickers (haven't heard that in a while, huh), and a photo of a rock. THAT'S IT - those are your hints. I'm no puzzle expert, but I have read about the coding and ways of hiding hints within text and photos, and seen clever examples. It would be inappropriate to discuss specifics anyway, but I'm pretty certain that's what's going on.

 

And Aussies and New Zealanders are known for their edgy humor. They're probably slapping their knees at the pub right now at the brouhaha and knicker-twisting they've created with text that hides a puzzle hint and is 100% a spoof.

[+wb1116]

Hi all concerned. I am the cache owner of the puzzle in question - the text is nothing to do with the puzzle (now there is a hint to stop folk going down a rabit hole).

 

Everybody please relax and read on - there is no malicious intent with my listing.

 

gasbottle - I'm not preaching at you, nor any other cacher that has chosen to become a Premium Member as we have. I congratulate you all for supporting the ongoing development and maintenance of the site by paying the meagre annual fee.

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches and then rush out to find them, having made an active choice to not support the development and maintenace of the site.

 

There is no agenda here, simply a reminder that Premium Caches are for Premium Members.

 

I hope this clarifies the earlier angst.

[+wb1116]

Loving your comments wmpastor about the humour down under!

 

The puzzle is reatively simple - acknowledge the D2 rating. The page text isn't part of the puzzle

 

Happy caching folk

Edited September 14, 2016 by wb1116

[+Manville Possum]

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches and then rush out to find them, having made an active choice to not support the development and maintenace of the site.

 

Let me begin with all of my listings except one WIG cache is PMO. I did not renew my PM and I'm still finding and logging PMO listings.

 

Nice listing BTW.

[+Team Microdot]

I see the text has gone from the page.

 

D2 is appropriate for the puzzle.

[+wb1116]

To be clear gasbottle, this was not about you or any other Premium Member.

 

It was about members that chose not to become Premium Members in order to get the Premium Member benefits, rather they access Premium Member benefits for free (yes, the ones you and I pay for) by asking other Premium Members to provide them with those benefits.

 

However, due to your complaint I have now changed the cache pages that had this information on them.

 

Those non premium members will continue getting their premium benefits for free.

 

Happy caching everybody []

 

The PMO cache GC6RTVT was published near me recently. I've reproduced the entirety of the wording below:

 

Please bring a pen.

 

A great deal of work goes in to maintaining the website in order for our wonderful hobby to continually develop.

 

Premium membership contributes to this and is a relatively small cost to pay.

 

If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today.

 

If you choose not to support Geocaching by paying the small fee, please refrain from 'finding' this cache.

 

Existing Premium Members - thank you for maintaining the integrity of the game.

 

{There's also a photograph of a rock which I haven't reproduced here}

 

The wording as published followed the same theme but much of the wording above was added after publication.

 

It's a PMO cache, so I question the value of promoting membership to people who, by definition, already have it.

I particularly resent being preached to about 'moral integrity', doubly so when I've already demonstrated that I have it (at least, by the standards of this listing).

But mostly, this listing appears to have been created purely to promote the CO's agenda for enlarging paid membership.

 

So, what should I do?

• Should I just add this to my ignore list and not be so sensitive?
  
• Or should I raise it with the reviewer on the grounds that it contravenes the listing guidelines?
  

Edited September 14, 2016 by wb1116

[+J Grouchy]

As long as Groundspeak chooses to implement automatic annual renewal, I am FAR less inclined to "support the development and maintenance of the site". I choose not to support sleazy business practices such as that and am fairly certain I will drop my premium member status come December.

[+narcissa]

Nice to see that this particular cache page will no longer be used as a platform for the cache owner's agenda, but it's unfortunate to see this kind of deliberate antagonism toward other geocachers.

 

Geocaching.com has permitted regular members to log PMO caches for as long as I've been playing the game; if someone has a problem with that, he/she should take it up with Groundspeak instead of treating other geocachers poorly.

[ohgood]

To be clear gasbottle, this was not about you or any other Premium Member.

 

It was about members that chose not to become Premium Members in order to get the Premium Member benefits, rather they access Premium Member benefits for free (yes, the ones you and I pay for) by asking other Premium Members to provide them with those benefits.

 

However, due to your complaint I have now changed the cache pages that had this information on them.

 

Those non premium members will continue getting their premium benefits for free.

 

Happy caching everybody []

 

The PMO cache GC6RTVT was published near me recently. I've reproduced the entirety of the wording below:

 

Please bring a pen.

 

A great deal of work goes in to maintaining the website in order for our wonderful hobby to continually develop.

 

Premium membership contributes to this and is a relatively small cost to pay.

 

If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today.

 

If you choose not to support Geocaching by paying the small fee, please refrain from 'finding' this cache.

 

Existing Premium Members - thank you for maintaining the integrity of the game.

 

{There's also a photograph of a rock which I haven't reproduced here}

 

The wording as published followed the same theme but much of the wording above was added after publication.

 

It's a PMO cache, so I question the value of promoting membership to people who, by definition, already have it.

I particularly resent being preached to about 'moral integrity', doubly so when I've already demonstrated that I have it (at least, by the standards of this listing).

But mostly, this listing appears to have been created purely to promote the CO's agenda for enlarging paid membership.

 

So, what should I do?

• Should I just add this to my ignore list and not be so sensitive?
  
• Or should I raise it with the reviewer on the grounds that it contravenes the listing guidelines?
  

 

looks like misplaced annoyances. read on....

 

you should be upset with the premium subscribers that are giving away your cache/details instead of just saying"no" , when those non subscribers ask for access to the subscription stuff.

 

if people are using the website might try to access your cache details, they will see

1 the ground speak pay wall

2 it's a micro

 

and I bet 99% of them will move on. I have no facts to back this up, just watching other people skip the paywalls on other forums / webpages.

 

I think your subscription based cache is safe from the masses. :-)

 

thanks for adding another one, even though I'll never see it. :-)

[+wmpastor]

As long as Groundspeak chooses to implement automatic annual renewal, I am FAR less inclined to "support the development and maintenance of the site". I choose not to support sleazy business practices such as that and am fairly certain I will drop my premium member status come December.

 

Not to get off topic but just to briefly reply to the auto-renewal discussed a few weeks ago in another thread. I dislike that on principle also, and had to accept it in another situation. However, in that situation, I confirmed you could *immediately* cancel the auto-renewal, which I did. Groundspeak should give people that option, if they haven't already. Okay, back on topic.

[+J Grouchy]

As long as Groundspeak chooses to implement automatic annual renewal, I am FAR less inclined to "support the development and maintenance of the site". I choose not to support sleazy business practices such as that and am fairly certain I will drop my premium member status come December.

 

Not to get off topic but just to briefly reply to the auto-renewal discussed a few weeks ago in another thread. I dislike that on principle also, and had to accept it in another situation. However, in that situation, I confirmed you could *immediately* cancel the auto-renewal, which I did. Groundspeak should give people that option, if they haven't already. Okay, back on topic.

 

It shouldn't exist in the first place. If anything, make it an opt-in...not the default. Requiring additional action to cancel it is Groundspeak counting on people to forget/procrastinate. Instead of earning our business every year, they just hope we'll be absent-minded or lazy enough to let it slide year after year. I don't respect any entity with that mindset.

Edited September 14, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+dprovan]

Everybody please relax and read on - there is no malicious intent with my listing.

I don't think anyone thought you were being malicious. It's just an agenda. Agendas aren't allowed in cache descriptions. As far as I could tell, we were just discussing that black and white problem and how to react to it without judging the specific agenda. We can support the agenda while still recognizing that pushing it isn't allowed in that context.

[+.Flo.]

Puzzle solved! Too bad I'll probably never be able to get to those coordinates!

[SicilianCyclops]

Hi all concerned. I am the cache owner of the puzzle in question - the text is nothing to do with the puzzle (now there is a hint to stop folk going down a rabit hole).

 

Everybody please relax and read on - there is no malicious intent with my listing.

 

gasbottle - I'm not preaching at you, nor any other cacher that has chosen to become a Premium Member as we have. I congratulate you all for supporting the ongoing development and maintenance of the site by paying the meagre annual fee.

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches and then rush out to find them, having made an active choice to not support the development and maintenace of the site.

 

There is no agenda here, simply a reminder that Premium Caches are for Premium Members.

 

I hope this clarifies the earlier angst.

 

Premium caches are not just for premium members; every geocacher has the right to log a cache they find on public land. I have done so, and done it with the utmost respect.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

[+wb1116]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

 

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all 😀

[+wmpastor]

...

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

[/Quote]

 

Apparently some considered the statement of your views in the cache listing abhorrent (a word used elsewhere because the fun activity of caching sometims generates intense unfun feelings for some cachers).

 

As for your statement in the listing, I can understand how a local moocher (North American term for scrounger) is irritating you and your local community, of course.

[+narcissa]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

 

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all 😀

 

Geocachers are not prohibited from sharing PMO cache details with non-PMO friends and family members. All geocachers are permitted to log geocaches, PMO or not. If two or more geocachers are able to leverage a single premium account to get what they need to play the game, good for them.

 

I highly doubt Groundspeak intends for geocachers to cajole others into buying membership this way.

[SicilianCyclops]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

 

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all 😀

 

I don't understand. If someone is not a premium member but takes the time to get information about your cache, get in their car and drive to the location, respectfully find it, sign the logbook, then log it online, why do you care so much? How are they "mooching" anything? They're not getting any monetary or material gain from it. Now, if you find that your cache is being messed with or damaged in any way, that's a different story, but I don't think that's the case.

[+JL_HSTRE]

"If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today."

 

What's the significance of 350 caches/year?

[+cerberus1]

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all

I don't understand. If someone is not a premium member but takes the time to get information about your cache, get in their car and drive to the location, respectfully find it, sign the logbook, then log it online, why do you care so much? How are they "mooching" anything? They're not getting any monetary or material gain from it. Now, if you find that your cache is being messed with or damaged in any way, that's a different story, but I don't think that's the case.

Sounds (to me) that the "gain" is simply the FTF, on that side-game.

 

Kinda suprised that the CO isn't more upset with those pms who are sharing that info, than the one clever enough to gain the info from them.

[+cerberus1]

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

Funny, after reading the OP's post, I looked at that page before the changes, and I didn't see anything of the kind.

[SicilianCyclops]

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

Funny, after reading the OP's post, I looked at that page before the changes, and I didn't see anything of the kind.

 

Yeah. It clearly said, "If you choose not to support Geocaching by paying the small fee, please refrain from 'finding' this cache." No co has any authority to say who can and cannot find their caches.

[+thebruce0]

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all

Wait... so, it sounds like the problem is that Premium Members are ruining your local scene by giving a non-PM member information hidden from them. But, your initial cache description seemed to commend Premium Members in general for maintaining the integrity of the game, as if the only problem is non-PM members.

 

Other comments have raised a few other issues with this 'agenda' as well...

 

Kinda suprised that the CO isn't more upset with those pms who are sharing that info, than the one clever enough to gain the info from them.

Indeed! My first reaction (if I cared about the FTF game as much as the OP) would be to track down the PMs who are acting as the catalyst for the local community outrage.

Edited September 16, 2016 by thebruce0

[+GeoBain]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

 

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all 😀

 

Give me the guy's name in a private message. I'll gift him a premium membership.

 

However, I think what's really bothering you is that he has more time on his hands and is able to scoop the FTFs since you have to work for a living. Purchasing a premium membership won't fix that.

 

You are probably upset that making your caches PMO didn't slow him down. It may be to to retire so you can pursue the FTF game.

[+wmpastor]

It may be to to retire so you can pursue the FTF game.

[/Quote]

Sounds good. Does GS offer grants for that?

 

Could you ask the reviewer to list all new caches at 5:00 PM or on weekends so that the "idle rich" don't have a FTF advantage?

Edited September 16, 2016 by wmpastor

[+wb1116]

 

The issue is, and this may be a bug with the site that Groundspeak need to be aware of, that the ability exists for non Premium Members (including those that are active enough to have over a thousand finds per year), to view the page text of Premium Only caches

 

I that true?

 

I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something?

 

Nope, missed nothing.

 

What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle.

 

The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free.

 

Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright.

 

That is all 😀

 

Give me the guy's name in a private message. I'll gift him a premium membership.

 

However, I think what's really bothering you is that he has more time on his hands and is able to scoop the FTFs since you have to work for a living. Purchasing a premium membership won't fix that.

 

You are probably upset that making your caches PMO didn't slow him down. It may be to to retire so you can pursue the FTF game.

 

Thanks for the offer on this. Several of us local cachers have already discussed,however we ecided not to - we want him to step up to the plate.

 

No, being a Prem Member won't slow him down. All some of us are trying to do is provide others with the opportunity to get the odd FTF - including the cacher that created this forum.

 

If everybody went back and read the text that I had placed in my cache, without the negative context from the forum, I'd hope they would see it through a different lens. That said, I have been chastised and called "arrogant" and a "tyrant", for trying to 'even the play field'.

 

Yes, I did drop a line (well before this forum began) to the PM that had shared the Prem data with the non-PM.

 

Yes, I did put my hand up and enter this forum by first stating " I am the cache owner of the puzzle in question" with an explanation of what my cache text was and was not about.

 

Yes, I got it wrong - and have been informed by the Growly Bear (a local reviewer that works extremely well to assist in the success of our game) that Premium Only caches may be found by non PM, however may not be seen.

 

Yes, I asked that PM maintain the integrity of this by not enabling the viewing of PMO caches by non PM. No, I do not mean your spouse or kids, I do mean non related non PM that are in a postion to become PM.

 

No, the forum creator did not question this issue with me first, however publicly sought advice from folk offshore that have never met me and had no way of knowing the background or the many local discussions by local cachers far more experienced than me who happen to be more than a little annoyed about what has been ongoing for rather a long while.

 

Yes, I do personally know the non PM, and I will have a discussion when we next see eachother (rather than on online discussion), and yes it will be a polite respectful discussion. The non PM in question are two lovely people. Just wish they'd make that call to support the ongoing development and maintenance of the site that we all use to enjoy our hobby.

 

"If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today."

 

What's the significance of 350 caches/year?

 

The 350 was simply a line in the sand that indicates somebody gts 'about a cache a day'. That is not meant to mean somebody is caching every day, rather an average number. This non PM gets 'about' a thousand or more each year.

 

It may be to to retire so you can pursue the FTF game.

[/Quote]

Sounds good. Does GS offer grants for that?

 

Could you ask the reviewer to list all new caches at 5:00 PM or on weekends so that the "idle rich" don't have a FTF advantage?

 

Yup, last night (Friday night here in New Zealand) I submitted two more caches, hoping GB will publish over the weekend. I will ask specifically for this in future - great idea thanks wmpastor.

 

And, yup, I will continue to place caches for the enjoyment of others and to continue to grow the game.

Nothing in my listing was designed/intended to 'cause resentment about being preached to' or indeed offend anybody. It was never about an agenda for "religious, political, charitable or social purposes" (as outlawed by he rules).

 

If you have a query about a listing by another CO, please ask the CO - you will probably find they will be rather informative

 

If any of you are visiting New Zealand and make it to Wellington, be sure and tip your hat. Lot's of pointers for folk that want some ideas about some some great local caching locations depending on your requirements.

 

Happy caching folk.

[+wmpastor]

"If you haven't already done so and you average over 350 caches a year please make a moral integrity choice and upgrade today."

 

What's the significance of 350 caches/year?

 

1 cache per day, on average?

[+MartyBartfast]

At one time there used to be a clause in the Ts&Cs along the lines of "you will not share data with others", which I think was primarily aimed at stopping people sharing PQs. I don't know if there is such a clause in the terms nowadays, but if so this situation might be contravening that clause and might be enough to put the PM off sharing the cache details.

[+GeoBain]

At one time there used to be a clause in the Ts&Cs along the lines of "you will not share data with others", which I think was primarily aimed at stopping people sharing PQs. I don't know if there is such a clause in the terms nowadays, but if so this situation might be contravening that clause and might be enough to put the PM off sharing the cache details.

 

Getting accounts suspended for T$C violation is definitely one way to go. It will help level the playing field for the FTF game. But it will probably result in less premium memberships, not more.