[Az-Geocaching] Poll

[AZcachemeister]

This post from Mr. Cowspots about covers it for me too.
I also got a somewhat icky feeling when I got sponsorship offers before 
even asking. Wasn't I supposed to expound on my cache ethics and such 
/before/ getting sponsored? Does one get brownie points for having more 
sponsored cachers (underlings)?

Steve

David Thompsen wrote:

> */Guy Aldrich <graldrich at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>     Dave, could you please explain what you mean by"TC.com leaves a bad
>     taste in my mouth ?
>
> Sure. I guess you're kind of becoming an unofficial spokesman for 
> TC.com, since you and your wife now own more TC's than everyone else 
> in the state combined.
>  
> I'll start at the top. From the Terracaching site, here are some of 
> the things they offer that you don't get at other sites. 
>  
> (the following is from their confusing FAQ)
> ..."TPS points, MCE/UCR ratings, Locationless caches, and the 
> breathing room to post fun, quality caches that don't always fit 
> within the other site's "guidelines"....
>  
> 1) TPS points & MCE/UCR ratings.  I start to go a little cross-eyed 
> when I look at the formulae they use to try to determine this.  I'd 
> rather do the 1040 long form.  I suppose they're trying to say that 
> they have a competitive scoring system in place. Ok, great.  As far as 
> Arizona's concerned, I've been pleasantly surprised by Noshdoo Tsoh' 
> excellent Arizona Challenge Points page. 
> (http://www.deepsouthwest.com/geocaching/stats/)  I didn't like it at 
> first, but over time it grew on me, and gives an interesting take on 
> the relative difficulty of caches.  I prefer it to the TPS structure 
> for my state.  MCE/UCR ratings?  I suppose these are feedback and 
> participation ratings.  Again, the formulae are enough to make you go 
> nuts.  My favorite part of their FAQ even compares UCR ratings to a 
> pyramid scheme.
>  
> 2)  Locationless caches.  OK, so they have 'em ... GC.com has some, 
> and keeps mentioning some new replacement concept for them in the 
> (indeterminate) future.  If you absolutely positively HAVE to have 
> locationless, I guess this is a tilt in TC.com's favor.  
> Realistically, I think that LC's are, for the most part, an extremely 
> minor or nonexistent part of most cachers life. I've done my share of 
> locationless.  They're a neat idea, but not the focus of my caching 
> experience at all.
>  
> 3) "breathing room to post fun, quality caches that don't always fit 
> within the other site's "guidelines"....  Here's where the site owner 
> gets a little snarky.  It's no surprise to me that he used to be an 
> avid cacher on "the other site" :) , decided to start TC.com, 
> plagiarized their legalese, got banned, and now goes by the name of 
> "Angry Kid". Hrm.   This is where I start to get the feeling of 
> elitism, of the chip on the shoulder, of "I'm taking my toys somewhere 
> else".  Whatever makes you happy --- but if you take your toys 
> elsewhere, play nicely.  Don't lob spitballs at the old base camp.
>  
> Other things that confuse me :
>  
> 4)  This is the index to the site. 
> (http://www.terracaching.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=623)
> Notice how section 3, "Acceptable Cache Guidelines", has no 
> hyperlink?  Are there any cache guidelines at all?  Or can you post 
> any cache you want as long as you find two sponsors?  Two buddies? If 
> I make two more Terracaching sock puppets, I should theoretically be 
> able to post a cache full of porn, crack vials, Satanist pamphlets, 
> and broken glass next to an active military installation.  I could 
> list every fact about this clearly wrong cache --- but as long as my 
> sponsors are willing co-conspirators, it'll go up live on the site as 
> an approved cache.
>  
> [Now my hypothetical example might eventually disappear, but the 
> mechanisms of cache archival over there look like they take a 
> looooooooong time.]
>  
> Sometimes you lose the battle within GC.com's guidelines.  I would 
> argue that having guidelines and designated approvers beats the 
> alternative of the slight anarchy I see over there. 
>  
> ---
>  
> These are SOME of the reasons that _at_this_time_  I'm not interested 
> in TC.com.  I reserve the right to change my mind if it seems to 
> improve in the future.  No one should feel obligated to belong just 
> one site. No one should feel the need to discuss just one site on the 
> listserv.  If I hear amazing things about caches that they offer that 
> just knock my socks off, maybe I'll change my mind.
>  
> But I'm not holding my breath.
>  
> --Dave, The Cow Spots
>  
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31637/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/> 
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv at azgeocaching.com
>To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
>Arizona's Geocaching Resource
>http://www.azgeocaching.com
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.sequoia.net/pipermail/az-geocaching/attachments/20050318/e248c94b/attachment.htm