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 /* 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! > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@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 > >