This prompted the following response from Jeremy(tm):
My response:No moving caches. My original post was not about the irresponsibility of placing moving caches without approval from local land managers(which is definitely an issue). It's the issue of placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere.
We have addressed this to death. If you don't like it, create your own moving caches web site and get folks to be irresponsible there. Some topics are not decided by committee.
If this comes up again, feel free to point anyone to this post. I doubt I'll address it again.
Jeremy Irish
Groundspeak - The Language of Location(tm)
There's more stuff from other people in the thread at GroundSpeak.That's a shame. "Placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere" doesn't have to be an issue. Is there any evidence that badly placed, yet approved, regular caches are less prevalent than well placed moveables that have since been banned? There have been no problems in NSW, Australia, where at least 6 moveables have been providing something different for a while.
It takes a certain type of person to be irresponsible, not a certain type of cache.
Ok, ok, I'll shut up. I know it's your site and your rules, I just hope it's well understood how this attitude looks to some people. I'll take this as a final, not-so-subtle hint that I need to call what I do something other than geocaching, as the name doesn't mean what it used to, to me. I know the old argument, gc != gc.com, but you can't separate the two anymore, and gc.com has implicitly assumed a responsibility.
Yours in looking forward,
Roger / Mind Socket
What do people think, not about moveables, about the general issue of rules? It's a multi-faceted topic, that's for sure.
- Mind Socket
