I have to agree with Stephanie. I can only imagine the frustration
of having to plant and re-plant a box, but one does wonder fi you
are constantly having to plant and replant if that is really a good
spot to be planting? Any boxes planted in urban areas run the risk
of being discovered by the wrong people and then go missing. There
are many boxes who have survived in the wild for years because of
their ideal location, despite being found by multiple people. I
agree that it only takes one person to re-hide poorly to ruin the
fun for everyone else, but why make it worse for so many more people
by being elitist with the clues?

I am sure that I would be qualified enough to receive WOM clues, but
as I really do not know any other boxers personally (except for just
a few I have met only once), I would never be the recipiant of the
WOM clues.

If you have a stamp with a questionable image, or one you hold very
dear and you want to make it a WOM box, then great, it is your
stamp, your work of art, anything you like would go and I do not
have a problem with that... but isn't the point of letterboxing
sharing your art and particular locations with others? Art is meant
to be shared not with a limited few but with everyone. =o) (Ok, you
could argue that we are still limiting to just letterboxers, but you
see my point).

I am a very conscientious boxer, so I know that nothing bad being
said here about boxers applies to me, but if people started pulling
boxes and making them WOM I would be one of the people excluded from
the hunt.

Ok, stepping off my box now. Sorry to rant but all too frequently I
have seen this topic and it makes me sad to feel that I may be
slowly excluded from a hobby I have grown to love.

Rhea

Well, since I am the one who used the word worthy, and I'm really
sorry to have offended anyone, I didn't mean to (I always forget that
it's easy to take a mis-step on the list), I'll have to say a little
more about it. By worthy, I only meant folks that could be counted on
to take care of the boxes they find. I would have to assume that means
at least all the people who belong to this list, since they have seen
the posts from everyone advocating secrecy and good custodianship.

I don't know how much planting Stephanie or Rhea have done, so I don't
know if they know how much energy, time and creativity it takes to
plant a good box. We do our best to choose appropriate hiding places,
and I agree that if a box has to be replanted numerous times, perhaps
that's a good clue that it's not a good hiding spot. That's why the
Healdsburg Quartet no longer exists. But it's also interesting to see
which ones do last a long time, and you can only know by trying. I
just really dislike the idea that my boxes can go missing because
someone on the inside was irresponsible. As a finder, I find plenty of
boxes that were not carefully rehidden, and that has nothing to do
with the appropriateness of the hiding place. Please don't be glib
about what planters should or shouldn't do until you are intimate
yourself with all that is involved. We WANT people to find our boxes;
but we also want our boxes to be there for people to find.

By worthy, I meant that harder clues might be a good system for boxers
to earn certain boxes. I like the idea of flagging boxes that are more
appropriate for beginners, and making clues progressively harder for
boxes for more advanced boxers. It shouldn't feel like being judged,
it should feel like something more challenging to aspire to. There
are so many boxes out there, I really don't see anyone running short
of options. Think of other activities that have different levels to
achieve: beginning skiers do not get out on the toughest slopes,
beginning or even intermediate piano students wouldn't dream of taking
on a concerto for their recital, skydivers do not get to free fall
solo until they've met the criteria required of them to do so, golfers
of most amateur levels hesitate to take on the most difficult courses.
I could go on and on (chess! cooking! knitting! spelling! languages!
ice skating! rock climbing! bridge!), and I don't see why letterboxing
should be any different. I will defend the right of other planters to
put a store-bought stamp in a box and write simple clues, as long as
they defend my right to carve an intricate stamp and provide very
cryptic clues. Kind of like free speech. Something for everyone.

Whew, I guess that qualifies as at least five cents.

Just keep boxing! aT

As a note, I also agree with Arttrekker... I love the idea of
progressively more difficult clues! I think that is a fantastic way
of protecting boxes that are more dear and rewarding boxers who have
been at this a long time... and yet that does not necessarily
exclude the extremely clever noobie...

I admit to not having planted many boxes yet, so I of course do not
lay all the blame on the planters, please do not misunderstand. But
at the same time, how many times have you seen large rocks stuck up
in the Y of a tree... not exactly blending in with the environment!
(I have found a few boxes this way and wonder how long they will
last there) And yes, as a finder I have definitely found my share of
poorly rehidden boxes in places that otherwise would have been
fabulous. Yes, part of the risk of planting is that it may go
missing. Not that long ago on AQ there was the "Challenge of the
Sprite" where that was exactly the point... whose box would last the
longest before it went missing! That too can be part of the fun of
this game we call letterboxing =o) Some of the fun of planting is
knowing that you are putting something out there that millions
(potentially) of people will pass by without even knowing there is
something there to find! I personally love that part!

I was only speaking up against the thought that more clues should be
WOM in order to hide them from noobies and keeping them safe that
way.

Cheers to all!
Rhea

--- In LbNCA@yahoogroups.com, "arttrekker2go" wrote:
>
> Well, since I am the one who used the word worthy, and I'm really
> sorry to have offended anyone, I didn't mean to (I always forget
that
> it's easy to take a mis-step on the list), I'll have to say a
little
> more about it. By worthy, I only meant folks that could be counted
on
> to take care of the boxes they find. I would have to assume that
means
> at least all the people who belong to this list, since they have
seen
> the posts from everyone advocating secrecy and good custodianship.
>
> I don't know how much planting Stephanie or Rhea have done, so I
don't
> know if they know how much energy, time and creativity it takes to
> plant a good box. We do our best to choose appropriate hiding
places,
> and I agree that if a box has to be replanted numerous times,
perhaps
> that's a good clue that it's not a good hiding spot. That's why the
> Healdsburg Quartet no longer exists. But it's also interesting to
see
> which ones do last a long time, and you can only know by trying. I
> just really dislike the idea that my boxes can go missing because
> someone on the inside was irresponsible. As a finder, I find
plenty of
> boxes that were not carefully rehidden, and that has nothing to do
> with the appropriateness of the hiding place. Please don't be glib
> about what planters should or shouldn't do until you are intimate
> yourself with all that is involved. We WANT people to find our
boxes;
> but we also want our boxes to be there for people to find.
>
> By worthy, I meant that harder clues might be a good system for
boxers
> to earn certain boxes. I like the idea of flagging boxes that are
more
> appropriate for beginners, and making clues progressively harder
for
> boxes for more advanced boxers. It shouldn't feel like being
judged,
> it should feel like something more challenging to aspire to. There
> are so many boxes out there, I really don't see anyone running
short
> of options. Think of other activities that have different levels to
> achieve: beginning skiers do not get out on the toughest slopes,
> beginning or even intermediate piano students wouldn't dream of
taking
> on a concerto for their recital, skydivers do not get to free fall
> solo until they've met the criteria required of them to do so,
golfers
> of most amateur levels hesitate to take on the most difficult
courses.
> I could go on and on (chess! cooking! knitting! spelling!
languages!
> ice skating! rock climbing! bridge!), and I don't see why
letterboxing
> should be any different. I will defend the right of other planters
to
> put a store-bought stamp in a box and write simple clues, as long
as
> they defend my right to carve an intricate stamp and provide very
> cryptic clues. Kind of like free speech. Something for everyone.
>
> Whew, I guess that qualifies as at least five cents.
>
> Just keep boxing! aT
>