Two Months Later: Re-Examing the DC Virt

When debating an issue, folks point to many things to support their case. If one states he will perform a certain action, others need to make some determinations.

  1. Do you trust the one who made the claim?
  2. Do you have information about the person making the claim which would lead one to reasonably doubt the claim?
  3. Are you willing to wait out the period of time to judge the claim based on the action performed?

Number three is one which should never come to be. If one makes a claim of future action to bolster his argument, it is really easy to perform the action and shut down the argument. One should never be able to come back at a later date and point to inaction and spoil the other’s argument.

On 31 May 2005 I brought to the community’s attention a cache I feel is obviously not a high quality cache. It is a virtual placed in DC by someone who lives in Washington state. While I was gearing up to do the cache, I discovered that the cache could easily be solved online. I detailed how I did it and was hopeful the cache owner would recognize the problems with his cache and attend to it. To that end, I could have taken a different tact. That may have made a difference. But I didn’t and the whole discussion blew up. In the end, the cache owner left the cache in place, added a “stop gap” by adding a photograph requirement and promised to fix the problems on his next visit to DC in July (more here, here, here), a month or more later.

While I recognize that some caches cannot be immediately attended to for various reasons, the wait for this one is directly because the owner lives 3000 miles away. I do not know how to word a rule about vacation caches, but this is the prime reason why some frown upon them. But if someone says he will attend to it, unless you have reason to distrust him, you take him at his word. I had never heard of the cache owner before. He obviously does not know me. From my list above, I had no reasons for numbers one or two. I was forced to follow option three. He said he would fix it in July. He seems to want a cache 3000 miles away and has a stake in either archiving it (my suggestion) or making it better. And while the cache shot to a 5.8 TPS once I brought it to the community’s attention, it is now down to 4.6 now—clearly, the community has decided it is a below-average cache.

I spent hours one day driving to DC to log this thing. It was not a thrilling experience. Hardly what I think a high quality cache is. Because I logged it, the rating has more weight. So, I was able to make it to DC, a three and one-half-hour drive, twice in a month’s time. That is more than the cache owner.

And here it is, now August, and comparing the cache page presently listed to the cache page when I found it, the only difference is that he removed the truncated logging requirement that spoke about solving a scavenger hunt on GC.com in order to claim his TC.com cache. Of course, that “stop gap” was as ill-conceived as the cache. Anyhow, it is now past the time he spent in DC. He logged a couple GC.com caches in Virginia on 8 July 2005. So, it looks as though he actually came east. But, the cache is still very much solvable online.

And now it is time to consider this inaction based on the original discussion. He stated:

I’ll change the endpoint of this cache when I’m back in July, (I’m back several times a year, BTW) if for no other reason than to change the now well publicized answer.

Since he didn”t do it, how is one supposed to consider his point of view in the thread?

He used ad hominem attacks throughout and then fell back on I’ll fix it in the future argument, which was just documented to not be what he did.

The DC virt still exists. It is solvable online. It has not been adjusted to remove the Internet searchability of the confirmation code as the cache owner stated he would. The cache owner lives approximately 3000 miles away from the cache in question.

Those are my reasons for describing the DC virt as a less than high quality cache. Since caches listed on TC.com are encouraged to be high quality, that it is still listed speaks volumes. For anyone who disagrees with my assessment, please use the comments section of this piece to describe what attributes of this cache make it high quality. I obviously have missed them somewhere and welcome being shown my errors.

Also blogged on this date . . .

15 thoughts on “Two Months Later: Re-Examing the DC Virt”

  1. Wow, Bob, this cache really pisses you off!
    You blew a whole day going to a cache you new you weren’t going to like just to try to use the finder’s weight to drive the MCE down? What’s your deal? Obsessive compulsive or what?

    Anyway, since you care so much that’s reason enough for me to leave it up until the MCE drops much lower. I had seriously considered it, but I don’t want to surrender to the likes of you. I’ll accept defeat if the MCE drops, but not surrender.
    As the TC site says it’s up to the community. Not Bob. Most people got what I was trying to do by filling in some gaps with TCs and those same people didn’t rush to the computer to crack the solution.

    As for alleged “ad hominem attacks,” you’re kidding right? By your lack of finds and urge to solve via the interenet I was pointing out that you weren’t exactly the “average” TCer.

    An ad hominem attack would be more like saying, “I’m not going to deal with Bob because he deals with his inferiority complex that he, like a lot of other teachers, developed because they can’t deal with the fact that he is a teacher not a doer by searching out errors of others and reveling in them.”

    But I wouldn’t say that.

  2. Bull Moose, your personal attacks of Bob are childish.
    The fact is that you own a cache that is known to be flawed and you are chosing not to correct the problem only to spite Bob.
    The MCE is artifically inflated by the so-called counter attack of “Superb” ratings.
    And….now you drop the picture requirement. What gives?

    Your actions and inactions don’t exactly make you an average TCer yourself.

  3. “Childish!?”
    Ad hominem attack! Ad hominem attack!!

    Actually, Dan, if you read my post you’ll read I went there, so no obvious fixes with the time I had and decided to leave it as is rather than trash the whole thing because based on the feedback I recieved, I believe that most TCers want to go out and find the cache the old fashioned way – notice no one else has logged it – and wanted the cache left even if it is possible. Spiting Bob is just a nice bonus to the situation.
    It might be fixed on my next trip to DC, or a solution might not. It might even drop so far it’s archived by then.

    I dropped the pic requirement because not everyone owns a digital camera.

    Based on some of your other comments, I noticed you were upset we are stuck with a “crappy” cache. Feel free to click that ignore button after you rate it SBA. And problem solved.

  4. Bull Moose, you are confusing critical comments of your cache with a personal attack on yourself.
    It is certainly beyond my own personal opinion to call your actions childish.

    And yes, any cache that can be ‘solved’ without visiting the location is crappy.
    It might pass muster on GC.com, but it’s definitely not up to standard as a Terracache.

    Sorry, but ignoring the problem isn’t the answer.

  5. “Bull Moose, your personal attacks of Bob are childish.”

    “It is certainly beyond my own personal opinion to call your actions childish. ”

    Cindy Sheehan move over!

  6. I take one night off and I am greeted with some wonderful comments. I knew something was up when I received notification that the DC Virt description had been changed.

    The ad hominem comments were levied by you, Mr. Bull Moose, when you commented about me being abrasive and from New Jersey. You do recall those comments, yes? You edited them later, but you made them. Let’s not reinvent history.

    You obviously do not know me. You referenced again my lack of finds. You need to read this site more carefully. You’ll never come up with a number of finds, but you can find out when I began caching and indications about find counts. Degrading my experience does nothing to bolster your argument.

    decided to leave it as is rather than trash the whole thing because based on the feedback I recieved, I believe that most TCers want to go out and find the cache the old fashioned way – notice no one else has logged it – and wanted the cache left even if it is possible.

    I do not question that you received positive feedback about this cache. But how committed were those people? Absolutely no one, other than me, has sought the cache. You have missed the point about solving your puzzle online. It was to see if it could be done (once I began plotting the first coordinate), not to claim a find. BM, you do recall I changed the “find” to a “note”. The only way to know if it was solved was to claim a find initially as you have a confirmation code. Continuing to chastise me for demonstrating that the cache was solvable from my desk is missing the point of my action.

    As Dan stated, you are missing the issue. For whatever tact I did or did not use in bringing this to the community’s attention, the facts have not changed:

    • You placed a cache thousands of miles from home.
    • You found out that this cache could be solved online.
    • You stated you would adjust the cache on your next visit. (“I’ll change the endpoint of this cache when I’m back in July”)
    • You did not adjust the cache because “I did not have time to do.”
    • You have come here and stated, “Spiting Bob is just a nice bonus to the situation.”
    • You toss around Cindy Sheehan’s name as if that has anything to do with this situation.

    You are the man. My pitiful UCR, my comments about the quality of your cache, and me being from New Jersey all pale to the future lawyer.

    You are obviously in control. You have placed a cache that you will leave out there despite what I think. You win.

  7. Cindy Sheehan move over!

    Well, that one went over my head.
    What are you implying? Thst I’m some sort of peace activist?

  8. I’ll let BM speak for himself, but I took it to be that he was equating his perceived rationality of your argument to the irrationality of Ms. Sheehan.

    It is not a good analogy in my opinion.

  9. Let’s speak about re-inventing history. Those comments were immediatly edited. The only reason you saw them is I suppose because you happened to be right there when they were posted or had a subscription to the list. I thought they weren’t appropriate at the time, but I can see now the abrasive” part proably was. In fact, you are correct, if you had been less abrasive, I probably would’ve just archived the cache. However, I don’t respond well to people trying to force my hand.

    You have missed the point about solving your puzzle online. It was to see if it could be done (once I began plotting the first coordinate), not to claim a find. BM, you do recall I changed the “find” to a “note”.

    Yes, you changed it after a week then posted the answer. Again without explanation in your log or contacting me. (Since I’m not notified of edits.)
    I stated the first time I thought you had actually found the cache. Maybe I should’ve done a deeper study of your lexicon to figure out that “solved” didn’t mean “found virtual” to you. I apologize.

    Conitinuing to chastise me for demonstrating that the cache was solvable from my desk is missing the point of my action.

    I think you are missing the point of why I am “chastising” you. I find your harping on this cache because the community didn’t fall into line with what you wanted done to be funny. Why don’t you look around and find the one or two others that I have seen that can be solved online and change your target a little bit. It won’t be so sad.

    # You placed a cache thousands of miles from home.

    Yes. After much discussion with my sponsors and a few others who’s judgement I respect. You’re trying to apply GC rules to TC.

    # You found out that this cache could be solved online.
    # You stated you would adjust the cache on your next visit. (“I’ll change the endpoint of this cache when I’m back in July”)

    And at the time I thought I would. I had half an hour on the mall in July, and thought it undoable at the time. The endpoint may yet change, but I don’t think false logs will be a problem.

    You’re not my teacher or my boss. I didn’t feel the need to give you a progress report.

    # You have come here and stated, “Spiting Bob is just a nice bonus to the situation.”

    And it is.

    # You toss around Cindy Sheehan’s name as if that has anything to do with this situation.

    Conflicting opinions from the same mouth are conflicting opinions from the same mouth. At least Sheehan had a few months to convince herself otherwise.

    and me being from New Jersey all pale to the future lawyer.
    You are obviously in control. You have placed a cache that you will leave out there despite what I think. You win.

    It has nothing to do with you being from Jersey. I descend from New Jersians. I edited that comment made in the heat of the moment for a reason. And I prefer current research biochemist to future lawyer. The law school thing is kind of a lark.

    I have had a couple of PMs from people trying to tell me what a usually nice guy you are. In my years of caching I have got in exactly two pissing matches. This one and one with another cacher from New Jersey (weird). Hell, I even get along with the local cacher who is always in a fight with someone. I cache for fun, I have enough conflict and politics in the professional part of my life, I don’t need it in caching. So I’ll leave this situation alone. I’ll leave the cache stand as is until the MCE drops to a level I have determined.
    It’s your blog, you can say what you want, but I feel you’ve made your case, registered your opinion and I don’t get why you think you have a stake in this cache. I do. My sponsors do. Angry Kid might. I’ve said if a more local cacher wants to take control of the area I’ll archive.

    Happy caching, Bob and Dan.

  10. OK, one more to explain the Sheehan remark.

    Expressing an opinion in one post and then in the next saying it was “beyond your opinion” came off to me as the same kind of 180 as Sheehan’s changing story of her visit with the president.

    I would never accuse anyone of being a peace activist without proof. I’m not a monster.

  11. OK, one more to explain the Sheehan remark.

    Expressing an opinion in one post and then in the next saying it was “beyond your opinion” came off to me as the same kind of 180 as Sheehan’s changing story of her visit with the president.
    I would never accuse anyone of being a peace activist without proof. I’m not a monster.

    Oh brother! I see why you’re named Bull Moose.
    Not only do you misquote me but misunderstand yet again.

    You wrote:

    “Childish!?”
    Ad hominem attack! Ad hominem attack!!

    First I stated that your attacks on Bob were childish, which by no means is far-fetched.
    And then:

    It is certainly beyond my own personal opinion to call your actions childish.

    That’s “beyond”, as in a broad consensus.

    This will help also:

    ad hom i nem adj.
    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

    Get it? I didn’t contradict myself as you claim.

  12. “That’s “beyond”, as in a broad consensus. ”

    Wow. Two guys. Huge concensus. Put your GED to work and use clearer English and I won’t misunderstand you.

  13. And show me where I misquoted you. Or do you just throw that out there when you have nothing else to say whether it’s true or not?

    Have anything else to say other than “you just don’t understand?” I understand all of your arguments. They aren’t great works of deep philosophy. Either I don’t care about them, or don’t buy them.

    I thought you NY/NJ boys were supposed to be tougher than crying “ad hominem attack” when someone dishes you up a little smack. Good lord, get a sense of humor.

    Again, happy caching, fellas.

  14. I squeezed for time right now (gotta get to my GED prep course).

    Hey Bull Moose, how much longer until you name a cache after me? 😉

  15. May I suggest, BM, that you register on this site? That way, you can have access to the fora and this can be hashed out there.

    The comments for this section had been requested to be used to address why anyone thought the DC virt was a high quality cache. Since none of these comments address that, the fora would be a more appropriate venue for the current posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.