<p>Do people agree with that? If the text said "please let people with under 200 finds get the first 3 finds" I could understand it.<p> Banning a large proportion of the cachers in Sydney doesn't seem like a particularly good way to win friends and influence people. Maybe all the people with more than 200 finds could ban that team from finding their caches as a tit for tat measureIf you have two hundred or more caches found, please do not log a find on this cache. Your log will be removed. Give beginners a chance please.
Newbies only
- Richary
- 8000 or more caches found
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
- Location: Waitara, Sydney
Newbies only
Just saw a cache published with this text:<p>
-
- 10000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: 13 October 03 11:45 am
- Location: Travelling Australia using a Garmin Montana 650T
Doesn't seem fair. This cache has a much better idea.
Re: Newbies only
<p>why would you, for me the more that visit one of my caches the better</P>richary wrote:Just saw a cache published with this text:<p><p>Do people agree with that? If the text said "please let people with under 200 finds get the first 3 finds" I could understand it.<p> Banning a large proportion of the cachers in Sydney doesn't seem like a particularly good way to win friends and influence people. Maybe all the people with more than 200 finds could ban that team from finding their caches as a tit for tat measureIf you have two hundred or more caches found, please do not log a find on this cache. Your log will be removed. Give beginners a chance please.
<P>out of interest how many caches has this person found </P>
- Richary
- 8000 or more caches found
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
- Location: Waitara, Sydney
Re: Newbies only
<p>Member since June 2001, found 25, hidden 7. They seem to have a had a 5 year break from caching and just recently got back into it.pjamesk wrote:out of interest how many caches has this person found
- CraigRat
- 850 or more found!!!
- Posts: 7015
- Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
- Twitter: CraigRat
- Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
- Location: Launceston, TAS
- Contact:
- Big Matt and Shell
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
- Twitter: BigMattandShell
- Contact:
I have noticed that it has been diabled / deleted but not archived . and they have justified there reason for less than 200 finds
It doesn't. It makes the game (geocaching) a little easier for me to manage. My experience has been that more established cachers are more difficult to manage. They move the cache, they write me notes TELLING me what I NEED to do to MY cache to make THEM happy, they leap on new caches within hours of publication depriving newbies the thrill of being first to find. They write with incomprehensible acronyms (excluding new cachers again) and they get aggressive when their incomprehensible logs are removed.
In my work and in my life, I focus on helping new people learn new things. My geocaches are, by design, quick and easy finds and I place limits designed to privilege newer cachers. More established players have the experience they need to find more difficult caches in more difficult locations, they don't NEED my caches.
I'm motivated to place the 200-found limit by the experience of placing the Fan Death (GC1F90K) cache.
The way I see it, it's there cache, and they can put any restrictions they want. It's the way they want to play the game and I got no problem with it. If you think about it we all put some sort of restriction on our caches. 2 that come to mind are not suitable for the disabled people or kids. I know I've got caches like that. My 2 cents
Dooghan
Dooghan